Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two
o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRE SERVICES (OFFICER RANK)

Mr. Grimston: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now state how many regular officers in the National Fire Service failed to find officer posts with the new fire authorities; how many left the Fire Service on 31st March, 1948, on such pension as they had earned; and how many remained and were transferred in the rank of fireman.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I have obtained the following information from the local fire authorities: 165 former regular firemen who held officer rank in the National Fire Service immediately before the transfer of the Service to local control are not now serving in officer ranks in the new brigades. Of these, 75 retired on pension on 31st March, 1948. Of the remaining 90 now serving in the brigades, 72 are sub-officers, seven are leading firemen and 11 are firemen.

Mr. Grimston: Is the Home Secretary aware that there appears to be some discrepancy in the treatment of non-regulars who have been retired and regulars, inasmuch as non-regulars have received compensation, and these 75 regulars who have been retired have received none? Will he look again at this matter and see if it is not possible to come to some arrangement whereby the added years can be given so that there will be a full pension instead of a partial one?

Mr. Ede: I shall carefully examine the situation in a desire to do justice to these men, whose past services I greatly appreciate..

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Has any direction been given to the new authorities to

give priority to men who have spent some time on short-term engagements when fixing up the permanent service?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. It is not competent for me to give instructions, but very careful arrangements were made by which the claims of these men were brought to the attention of the authorities when they took over.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS

Visas (Application)

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will reconsider the granting of visas to Dr. Stanislav Heller, of Cechoslovakia, his wife and son, Milos, owing to the exceptional circumstances of his case.

Mr. Ede: I have carefully considered this case, but I have been unable to find in it any exceptional circumstances which would justify the grant of visas to Dr. Heller and his wife and son.

Mr. Teeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has always been the custom of this country to do what we can to help people to come to it, so that they may escape from real tragic conditions, and has he been given the fullest details on this subject, because it seems to me to be a very tragic case?

Mr. Ede: I have given very great care to this case and both the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) and another hon. and gallant Member who is also in the House, have brought the details to my attention. I have carefully examined them. These people are now able to reside either in France or in Austria where they are under no persecution and where, so far as one can see, they are as well off as they would be in this country.

Commander Noble: Would there he any time at a later date when this gentleman might try again?

Mr. Ede: I say nothing about the future at all, because one does not know what the situation in Europe might be, but I can assure the House that if every person were admitted, who had the same claims to come here as these people, the population of this country would be enormously increased.

Mr. Teeling: Is it not true that one of the sons of this family was already in England and that the rest of the family were more or less influenced by the representative of the British Council, who said it would be possible for them to be reunited in this country?

Mr. Ede: I cannot say what the representative of the British Council said, and, departmentally, I am not responsible for him. There is a son in this country who asked to come here for two years for the purpose of carrying on studies. Permission was granted—as I grant a large number of visas for people who want to come here to pursue courses of study. He then made representations desiring to stay a further year and that was given. I cannot have concessions like that used as an excuse for bringing in the whole family.

Naturalisation Certificates

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what organisations are notified by his Department when a person is naturalised.

Mr. Ede: The police of the district from which the alien applied are notified and the grants of all naturalisation certificates are published in the London Gazette.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that immediately after naturalisation, a number of Poles in Somerset received letters inviting them to join the Labour Party? Can he indicate how their names and addresses could have been obtained so quickly; and will he makes inquiries?

Mr. Ede: The "London Gazette" is available to members of the Labour Party. Certainly no communication on the matter has been made from my office to the Labour Party. I recognise that they have been very zealous.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONS

Discharged Prisoners' Aid, Liverpool

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the work of the D.P.A.S. at Liverpool Prison is being hampered by suggestions that an unofficial society,

from which official approval was withdrawn in 1943, is again to be recognised as qualified to do this work; and whether he has any statement to make.

Mr. Ede: Any such suggestions are entirely. without foundation. I have no intention of reconsidering the decision made in 1943, and I deplore the harm done to the work of helping discharged prisoners by the activities of this unrecognised body.

Kitchen Equipment, Preston

Dr. Segal: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the state of the kitchen equipment in His Majesty's Prison, Preston; and why no reply has yet been made to the representations of the Visiting Committee on this matter.

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. Arrangements are already in hand for the re-equipment of the prison kitchen with gas cooking apparatus. A reply was sent to the visiting committee on 10th December; I very much regret the delay.

Dr. Segal: If the visiting committee have had to use strong language in this connection, can my right hon. Friend imagine the language of the prisoners themselves.

Mr. Ede: The use of strong language by a visiting committee might be a disqualification for continuance in office. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have given careful attention to this case and I regret that there was a delay in answering the visiting committee.

Dr. Segal: May I tell my right hon. Friend that the use of strong language is certainly not a disqualification in this case?

JERSEY AIRPORT (REPAIR SERVICE)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek information from the States of Jersey as to what facilities there are at the Jersey airport for carrying out repairs to aeroplanes; and whether spare parts, etc., are kept there for that purpose.

Mr. Ede: Jersey airport is owned and maintained by the States of Jersey. I


understand that British European Airways, who are responsible for scheduled services, maintain a servicing organisation for their own aircraft and a charter company also maintains a servicing organisation which is available to other owners of aircraft in an emergency. A stock of spare parts is carried by both the company and British European Airways.

Mr. Piratin: Will the Home Secretary kindly look into this matter again? I understand on information from officials on the spot, that even minor-repairs have to be sent to Liverpool, which is B.E.A.'s head station for this purpose. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into it again with a view to having the whole machinery run more cheaply?.

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I have no responsibility at all in this matter. As the hon. Gentleman put the Question down, I got this information from the responsible people, but I have no position at all in the matter. I have no doubt that his supplementary question will be read in the States of Jersey, where he is well known, and that due regard will be paid to it.

WOMEN POLICE

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the number of local authorities who do not permit women police to operate in their districts; and if he will give the numbers of police women now employed throughout the country compared with 1939.

Mr. Ede: There are now only two police forces in England and Wales not having an authorised establishment of police women. In 1939 there were 226 attested and 20 unattested police women, whereas the authorised establishment is now 1,471 and the actual strength 1,023.

Mr. Janner: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that this force serves a very useful purpose, and will he try to persuade the other two authorities to do the same as the rest of the country?.

Mr. Ede: I am satisfied with regard to the force and have done my very utmost with the two remaining authorities, but up to the present I have not succeeded.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Will the right hon. Gentleman say which are the two authorities?

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. The City of London and the County of Merioneth.

BORSTAL (PAROLE APPLICATION)

Mrs. Ridealgh: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will reconsider the decision made on 10th December in respect of the case of which the hon. Member for North Ilford has already written to him; and whether, in view of the suffering caused to the mother involved, of the likelihood that the father's conduct will qualify him for leave in January under the Special Grade, and of the fact that the time before the birth is expected to take place is short, he will grant a two hours' parole, so that the young people may get married.

Mr. Ede: I have carefully reconsidered this case but I should not feel justified in making an exceptional grant of parole in this case. I regret, therefore, that I cannot alter the decision which was conveyed to my hon. Friend in my letter of 10th December last.

Mrs. Ridealgh: Will the Home Secretary take into consideration that this young man gave 4½ years' faithful naval service in foreign waters and was wounded during the course of it, and that it was only panic at the realisation that he had wronged his fiancee which made him commit the crime for which he is now suffering punishment? Is the Home Secretary aware that the doctor is gravely disturbed at the anxiety this young mother is suffering that her baby will be born without its father's name and is exceedingly concerned about the effects the delivery of the child will have upon the mother? Will he remember that this is Christmas and that the spirit of Christmas is in the birth of a child?

Mr. Ede: I have given the very utmost attention to this case and I have desired to make the concession for which the hon. Lady asks, but I am bound to point out to the House that this is no exceptional application. I have from time to time to deal with a succession of these cases. Under the law as it stands, the subsequent marriage of the parents legitimises the child.

Mr. George Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend explain how he is prevented from making this normally decent gesture, which would in no way hurt the penal service of which he is the head?

Mr. Ede: I am convinced that if I made the concession in this case, I should have to make it in every case of this kind—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—and that would involve such an interference with the rules about the grant of leave in the institutions, that I am certain prison discipline would be interfered with.

Mrs. Ridealgh: Would not a little kindness to a first offender have a much greater effect than harsh treatment of this description? Will not the Home Secretary temper justice with mercy?

Mr. Ede: I regret that, in the interests of the discipline of the service, I cannot reach any other conclusion than the one I have reached.

Mr. Teeling: Is there any reason why the couple should not get married in the prison?

Mr. Ede: No application in that respect has been made. I do not think they could be married in the Borstal institution. Only this morning I was considering whether it would be possible to make the offer that they could be married in the parish church or other suitable place near the institution. I am considering whether that will be possible, but I must be adamant on the point that I cannot allow special leave for this youth to go home.

Mrs. Ridealgh: I asked the Home Secretary whether he would permit the marriage within the institution. The Governor was willing to allow his house for that purpose.

Mr. Ede: The Governor's house, of course, is not a registered place where a legal marriage can take place.

DOG RACING (OFFENCES)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many successful prosecutions of persons who have drugged, dyed or doped greyhounds and indulged in similar

practices have been instituted during the last three years.

Mr. Ede: There were four in the Metropolitan Police District; I have no particulars of similar proceedings elsewhere.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister satisfied that sufficient precautions are taken after dark to protect greyhounds and prevent them from being doped?

Mr. Ede: I do not want to be drawn into a controversy with regard to the way in which dog tracks are conducted, but it is no responsibility of mine to see that dogs are not doped.

NIGHT CLUBS, LONDON

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bona fide night clubs there are in London.

Mr. Ede: I am not sure what my hon. Friend means by a "bona fide night club." Any registered club in central London (unless its rules provide otherwise) can supply drinks up to 11 p.m., or, if they have the necessary approval of the licensing justices, with meals up to midnight; and an extra half-hour is allowed for consumption of liquor with a meal. Applications may be made for the extension of these hours for special occasions.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that hon. Members have received a circular from the Association of Night Club Proprietors, and would these clubs come under the heading of bona fide organisations?

Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman must investigate each case on its own merits. I can give him no guidance on the matter.

Mr. Erroll: Will not the Minister reassure the House that the night clubs referred to, are operating within the law as it stands at present, and are therefore, to that extent, bona fide establishments?

Mr. Ede: No, I cannot. I have never investigated these places myself, and my answer must not be taken as giving either a good or bad character to them.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Will not the Home Secretary himself pay a visit and take an expert with him?

PARKED VEHICLES (LIGHTS)

Captain John Crowder: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consult with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police with a view to an extension of the use of his power to give consent to vehicles being parked without lights where he is satisfied that the roadway is adequately lighted.

Mr. Ede: The Commissioner's powers to consent to vehicles being parked without lights are limited to cab ranks and authorised parking places appointed by the Minister of Transport. Consent has been given in a number of cases and the Commissioner is considering whether it can appropriately be given in respect of certain further authorised parking places having regard to all relevant considerations, including the safety of other road users.

Captain Crowder: Will the Home Secretary consider consulting with a special committee of the R.A.C. and A.A. who are considering this subject in which they are interested, so that the public shall know exactly the position?

Mr. Ede: If the committee like to approach me, I shall be glad to be associated with them because, generally speaking, those organisations are very helpful.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Tuberculosis (Sanatoria)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of Health what percentage of beds is vacant in tuberculosis sanatoria through lack of nurses.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): Eighteen per cent.

Mr. Shepherd: Will the Minister say, in view of the urgent need for these facilities, what additional steps he is taking to try to get the necessary staff to man these beds?

Mr. Bevan: Higher salaries and service allowances are now paid for nurses in these institutions, and we shall have to wait a little time to see whether these

will have the proper effect. We are hoping they will.

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Health what is the average waiting time for entry to sanatoria by those suffering from tuberculosis.

Mr. Bevan: This information is not available; and waiting time varies so widely according to individual circumstances that an average, as such, has no value.

Mr. Shepherd: Would not the Minister admit that, in many cases, the waiting time is as long as 10 months, and in view of the distressing results that might accrue from it, will he say whether he is prepared to institute medical priority?

Mr. Bevan: I think the hon. Member will find that, as a general rule, medical priorities are in operation. I would also like to call his attention to the fact that had those changes in nurses' salaries and allowances taken place much earlier, we might have had many more nurses.

Mr. Donner: Could the right hon. Gentleman approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer to obtain foreign exchange for those who want to go to Switzerland to be cured, who are on the waiting list now, and who cannot be cured in this country?

Mr. Bevan: No, I am certainly prepared to do so.

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: As this question is apparently concerned with the shortage of nurses, can the Minister tell us whether any steps are being taken to get foreign nurses over here in order to relieve these difficulties?

Mr. Bevan: Certainly, foreign nurses are in employment in this country, and large numbers of domestic staff from other countries are in employment in our hospitals and sanatoria in order to relieve British nurses.

Eire Citizens

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Minister of Health if he will state the cost to the taxpayers of the United Kingdom of the free medical and pharmaceutical


services provided for citizens of Eire temporarily residing in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bevan: This information is not available.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is the Minister taking steps to ensure that citizens of Southern Ireland, and foreigners temporarily resident in this country, pay for the medical services they get?

Mr. Bevan: The only thing I can do is to apply the law as it stands. I would remind the House in connection with this Question, and similar questions, that if we are to draw distinctions between people resident in Great Britain, a great deal of form-filling by everybody would be necessary.

Sir W. Wakefield: Does the Minister mean, then, that the people of Britain are paying for the free services to foreigners resident in this country?

Mr. Bevan: What I am satisfied about is that the administrative machinery necessary to distinguish between people who should or should not have this service—that is to say, those who are resident long enough although no such test is applied—would be far more than the cost of giving the service.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will the Minister bear in mind that anything we can do to promote friendship between this country and Eire is to be commended?

Mr. Thomas Reid: Are reciprocal services given in Eire, or are they likely to be given to our people there?

Mr. Bevan: The citizens of Eire are in exactly the same situation as visitors from any other country in the world, and I cannot understand this intense enthusiasm to discriminate against citizens of Southern Ireland.

Doctors (Capitation Fee)

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to state the amount of capitation fee doctors are receiving from their patients.

Mr. Bevan: There is a fund of 18s. 0d. multiplied by 95 per cent. of the civil

population. From this an agreed deduction is made for mileage payments, making the distributable fund about 17s. 5d. multiplied by 95 per cent. of the civil population. The actual payment per person on a doctor's list in any particular Executive Council's area varies with the proportion of the population who are on the lists of that area. I shall not be able to say until after the end of the financial year what was the actual rate payable in each executive council's area.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is the Minister aware that doctors were expecting that the capitation fee would be 18s. without deductions, and that in certain areas as much as 2s. or 2s. 6d. may be deducted from the 18s.? Could he put that right?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is quite incorrect. The representatives of the British Medical Association never expected that the capitation rate would not be less than 18s.; they knew that there would be certain agreed deductions from it.

Sir W. Wakefield: Whatever the Minister may say, the fact remains that the majority of doctors throughout the country are suffering under this misapprehension.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Was not the amount of money available for the doctors agreed to, when it was thought that 18,000 practitioners would come into the scheme? Now that 19,000 have come into the scheme, should not a larger amount of money be available?

Mr. Bevan: The information of the hon. and gallant Member is incorrect. The doctors are quite adequately represented at the moment, and discussions are taking place between my Ministry and the representatives of the medical profession. Perhaps hon. Members would await the result of those discussions before organising a single pressure lobby.

Commander Noble: The Minister said that the actual amount paid varied in different areas; could he say between what limits it varies?

Mr. Bevan: No, I cannot do so until the facts are available.

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: When the Minister speaks of a single pressure lobby, will


he avoid making the inflammatory and insulting speeches which he did when the last discussions were under way?

Mr. Bevan: I do not know what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman means by that—[HON. MEMBERS: "We do."]—but probably the Opposition will seek an opportunity of discussing these matters, and I would remind them in advance that they cannot all add to each item and expect the total to be low.

Prescriptions

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Health if he will indicate the administrative difficulties which prevent the disallowing of prescriptions prescribed at the public expense but not conforming to required conditions by doctors in the State service, for private patients, while similar prescriptions by the same doctors for State patients can be disallowed.

Mr. Bevan: A doctor in the service, who prescribes for patients treated under the service, substances which are afterwards found not to be drugs or not to be necessary for the proper treatment of the patient, is subject to the disciplinary procedure provided in the regulations. The regulations do not, however, apply to private patients, for whom there is no prescribing at the public expense.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is it not clear, therefore, that what the Minister is now doing is to deprive private patients of the right to go to doctors, even though they be in the State service, by disallowing them the right to have pharmaceutical services?

Mr. Bevan: I am not prepared to allow public money to be spent on any form of activity where we shall not have the power to correct abuses.

Medical Partnerships

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to accept the recommendations of the Legal Committee on Medical Partnerships.

Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir, and so far as legislation is required, proposals will be made in the forthcoming Bill to amend the National Health Service Act.

Mr. Collins: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication when he hopes to introduce the amending legislation?

Mr. Bevan: I cannot at the moment, but I hope there will not be very much delay.

Executive Councils (Clerks)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Health what salary and expenses are paid to clerks of executive councils under the National Health Service; and to whom these clerks are responsible.

Mr. Bevan: Clerks of executive councils receive salaries based on the population of their areas and the usual travelling and subsistence allowances. They are responsible to their councils.

Mr. Piratin: May I ask the Minister, for the guidance of the House, whether we may ask him Questions regarding the work of these clerks of the councils and whether he can get such information from their respective executive councils?

Mr. Bevan: Subject to your Ruling in this matter, Mr. Speaker, I am responsible for the administration of the whole of the National Health Service Act. All the various bodies are, in that respect, subordinate to the Minister; the Minister is subordinate to the House, and Questions may be put to me about anything concerning it.

Cost

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: asked the Minister of Health what moneys have been paid out of public funds since 5th July, 1948, in respect of hospital services, general medical services, pharmaceutical services, general dental services and ophthalmic services; and approximately what proportions these sums represent of the total liability incurred.

Mr. Bevan: As the reply includes a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Would the right hon. Gentleman just tell the House how much in excess of the estimate these services are likely to cost the country?

Mr. Bevan: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will study the figures.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Of course I will, but I want the Minister to tell the House a very simple matter which does not require a lot of figures.

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. I asked the hon. and gallant Member and the House to look at the figures.

Brigadier Medlicott: Has the Minister calculated how much of the greatly increased expenditure falling upon the Exchequer is caused by the fact that every time he makes a speech there is widespread gnashing of teeth?

Mr. Bevan: I would also like to remind hon. Members that many of these figures may be artificially inflated by the fact that some hon. Members opposite always appear to support abuses.

Following is the reply:

The total amounts paid out of public funds since 5th July, 1948, and up to 30th November, 1948, in respect of hospital services, general medical services, pharmaceutical services, general dental services and ophthalmic services are as follow:



£


Hospital services
58,000,000


General medical services
7,982,994


Pharmaceutical services
5,438,709


General dental services
5,541,658


Ophthalmic services
4,047,568

The total liability incurred in that period cannot be stated.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: asked the Minister of Health what sums have been paid out of public funds in respect of hospital services under the National Health Scheme from 5th July, 1948, to the nearest convenient date.

Mr. Bevan: Up to 30th November, 1948, a total of £58,000,000 had been paid by my Department in respect of hospital services in England and Wales since 5th July last.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how that compares with the estimate and whether it represents the total liability, or whether further sums have to be paid in respect of liability already incurred?

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir, because it is not possible at the moment to carve up the estimates. Very many of these demands are still being examined.

Regional Hospital Boards (Estimates)

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: asked the Minister of Health what estimates he has

received from regional hospital boards for the financial year 1949–50; and the total of these estimates.

Mr. Bevan: All regional hospital boards have submitted estimates for the financial year 1949–50. The total gross expenditure shown in the estimates as received is £157,680,000, of which £10,236,000 represents capital expenditure. Income is given as £9,021,000.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Would the Minister say how much that is in excess of the estimate?

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. and gallant Member will put the Question down, I will give him the answer.

Practitioners (Remuneration)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Health how many general practitioners who have accepted service under the National Health Service Scheme were paid remuneration for the first quarter of their service under the Scheme in excess of £750 a month and of £1,000 a month, respectively.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: asked the Minister of Health how many in each of the categories of dentists, pharmacists and opticians who have accepted service under the National Health Scheme were paid gross incomes over £750 and over £1,000, respectively, in any of the months of July, August, September, October and November, 1948; and if he will indicate in which cases the amounts did not represent final payment.

Mr. Bevan: Comprehensive information is not available and could only be obtained by detailed returns from all executive councils, which I do not think could be justified at present.

Mr. Keeling: Has the Minister estimated what proportion of the remuneration represents professional expenses?

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir.

Mr. Renton: asked the Minister of Health when the classification of specialists under the National Health Service Scheme will be complete; and whether he will make a statement on their remuneration in the interim period.

Mr. Bevan: Hospital Boards have been asked to complete their review as soon as possible. I am sending the hon. Member


a copy of the interim rates of remuneration which were published in the medical Press some months ago.

Mr. Renton: With regard to the first part of the Question, would the Minister give some idea as to the month in which the information will be published?

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. I cannot do that.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Rent Restrictions Acts (Amendment)

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Minister of Health when he proposes to introduce legislation amending the Rent Restrictions Acts in order to give protection to tenants who share a room with other tenants.

Mr. Bevan: A Bill containing a provision for this purpose is being introduced tomorrow.

Birmingham

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement as at the latest convenient date, of the present position of the housing programme in Birmingham; what number of houses has been completed for occupation; how many are in process of construction; and what steps are being taken to meet the cases of the 45,000 applicants now on the register.

Mr. Bevan: I would refer the hon. Member to the September Housing Peturn, Appendix B. Arrangements are being made for a continued house-building programme within the limits of the resources available.

Sir P. Hannon: Do I understand that the Minister is now giving more liberty to the estates committee in Birmingham to build houses than was the case before his recent arrangement with them?

Mr. Bevan: That is not the case. The limit on building in Birmingham was caused not by any action of the Ministry of Health but by local building resources.

Reconditioning

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Health why he has not consulted any organisation representing property-owners

before preparing the Bill for the improvement of existing dwellings.

Mr. Bevan: It is always open to the organisations to make representations.

Mr. Keeling: Yes, but is it not the normal practice, and only fair, to approach and consult persons intimately affected by a Bill while it is being drafted.

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. It is the normal practice for Ministers to make known in the ordinary way that a Bill is being prepared and for certain organisations, if they so wish, to make representations.

Mr. Keeling: When was that made known?

Mr. Bevan: It was made known in the Gracious Speech.

Mr. Keeling: But was not the Bill already drafted then?

Mr. Bevan: Of course not. The Bill is still in course of being drafted.

Flats (Premiums)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Health when he proposes to introduce legislation rendering illegal the present system of demanding a premium as a condition of the letting of flats.

Mr. Bevan: I would refer my hon. Friend to the provisions of the Bill which I am introducing tomorrow.

Council Houses, Ramsey Heights (Water Pipes)

Mr. David Renton: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that delay in the delivery of water pipes is holding up the completion of four council houses at Ramsey Heights, Hunts, which would otherwise have been ready for occupation last July; and what steps he will take to expedite the delivery of these pipes.

Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. Officers of my Department are in touch with the makers and are endeavouring to hasten delivery of the pipes.

Mr. Renton: Can the Minister explain why such a small item should be held up and cause such long delay?

Mr. Bevan: Partly because the local authority was late in ordering the pipes.

Furnished Apartments, Cardiff

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that people in Cardiff who have successfully applied to the Rents Tribunal in connection with the rent of their furnished apartments, are being turned out of their homes immediately the protective period lapses; and whether he will take steps to give greater protection to these people.

Mr. Bevan: A provision for this purpose is included in the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Bill which is being introduced tomorrow.

Labour Force, St. Albans

Mr. Dumpleton: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that building firms in the city of St. Albans have indicated to the local authority that their available labour force could deal with 264 houses in the first six months of 1949, whereas the total allocation made to the council for the period is only 120; and whether he will increase the allocation to 264.

Mr. Bevan: I am always ready to review allocations in the light of actual progress but the St. Albans builders would first have to make a greater effort to secure the contracts available. Up to now, the council have had to let nearly half their allocation to outside contractors because the local firms were unable or unwilling to compete.

Mr. Dumpleton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would be much more possible to obtain continuity of progress in the housing scheme if there could be some certainty of allocations in order to place contracts?

Mr. Bevan: There is sufficient certainty about enough contracts to provide for continuity. I do not know how far ahead the hon. Member wants continuity. If he wants it for the next three or four years, it is more than I know myself.

ENBORNE VALLEY WATER SCHEME

Mr. Donner: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Kingsclere Rural District Council have

received advice from his Department not to proceed with the council's proposed housing scheme at Headley or in any locality likely to be affected by the proposed flooding of the Enborne Valley; upon what information was this advice based; and in particular whether it included bore hole results.

Mr. Bevan: It was suggested to the council in October in reply to a general question that it would be inadvisable to erect houses at the present time in the area which would be affected if the En-borne Valley water scheme were proceeded with. No bore-hole results have been reported to me.

Mr. Donner: If the right hon. Gentleman has no information about bore hole results will he request the Metropolitan Water Board to disclose these results, because otherwise Hampshire and Berkshire County Councils, which are unanimously opposed to this scheme, may themselves be driven, with the permission of the owners, to bore, which would be a waste of manpower and material and involve duplication of work already carried out?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is continually pressing me to do something which is entirely illegal. These results are entirely the property of the Metropolitan Water Board. The matter does not come before me statutorily until an application is made.

Mr. Donner: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman could make a polite request?

Mr. Bevan: No, I cannot make a polite request. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] In fact, it is almost impossible for anyone to make a polite request in answer to some of the representations from hon. Members opposite. This Question has been put upon the Order Paper over and over again. I ask hon. Members opposite to go and read the law before asking ridiculous questions.

BIRTHS (REGISTRATION)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Health what instructions he proposes to issue as to the entries to be made in registering births resulting from human artificial insemination A.I.(D.).

Mr. Bevan: No fresh instructions are necessary. Registrars already have instructions to ask every birth informant for the name of the child's father: if the informant cannot give this information the columns of the birth entry containing particulars of the father are to he left blank.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Has that any bearing on the question of the legitimacy of the child?

Mr. Bevan: None as far as I understand.

INFIRM AGED PEOPLE (INSTITUTIONS)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Minister of Health how many infirm aged people in England and Wales are listed by the various county welfare departments as awaiting admission to institutions; and what steps are being taken to provide additional accommodation for such cases.

Mr. Bevan: Numbers are not at present available but I have asked local authorities to include them in the schemes which they are now preparing under the National Assistance Ac and which will contain their plans for providing additional accommodation.

SHORTER PRAYER BOOK (LEGALITY)

Professor Savory: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that under the Act of Uniformity of 1662 and the Clerical Subscription Act, 1865, the Prayer Book attached to the Act of Uniformity can only be altered by Act of Parliament, as has been the case on several occasions, notably in 1872, 1922 and 1934; and, in view of the fact that the publication of the shorter Prayer Book is a violation of the above-mentioned Acts, what steps he proposes to take to vindicate the authority of Parliament.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The The answer to the first part of the Question is: "Yes, Sir." With regard to the second part of the Question, I cannot agree that the mere publication of a shorter Prayer Book or any other book of devotion is necessarily a violation of the Acts, and I do not propose to take any steps in the matter.

Professor Savory: Without wishing to press the right hon. Gentleman unduly, may I ask if he is aware that this shorter Prayer Book wounds the conscience of many loyal churchmen? Is he not further aware that the Law Officers of the Crown unanimously recommended to the Prime Minister of the day that the deposited Prayer Book of 1928 must be submitted to the approval of this House and will he consult the Law Officers of the Crown with regard to the legality of this Book? May I he allowed to say I do not speak on this matter as a representative of Ulster, but as a member of the House of Laity of the Assembly of the Church of England representing the diocese of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich?

The Prime Minister: As I am informed the publication of a shorter Prayer Book cannot be said to constitute any alteration of the Book of Common Prayer. It is in the same position as any other private literary work and to attempt to prevent publication by an Act of Parliament would be a gross interference with the liberty of the subject. That, I may say, was, I understand, the line taken by my predecessor, Mr. Baldwin, in regard to the deposited Book.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the view he has just expressed will he found unacceptable to many Church people and that the whole question of the relations of Church and State is raised by this issue? In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend be good enough to represent to the bishops of the Church of England that they should give a lead in the matter by showing full respect for the law? May I have an answer to that question?

Mr. Wilson Harris: In view of the Scriptural injunction against the use of long prayers, is it not wise to be content with short prayers?

Mr. Driberg: With all due respect, is my right hon. Friend aware that his second reply was factually inaccurate, since this Book, which contains portions of the illegal 1928 Book, bears upon its title-page the misleading description,
According to the Use of the Church of England"?

The Prime Minister: I understand there has been an unfortunate use of a phrase and I understand that that is to be deleted in further editions.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the interests of both Church and State would be best served by leaving these matters to be dealt with by the Church Assembly?

The Prime Minister: I do not feel I am called upon to advise the bishops in regard to this matter.

Mr. Driberg: Further to that point, while it may be desirable that the Church of England should have the same spiritual and liturgical independence as the Church in Wales and the Episcopal Church in Scotland, is it altogether reasonable for the bishops to claim that independence and simultaneously to continue to enjoy the benefits of Establishment?

The Prime Minister: That seems to be a matter of opinion.

WALES (PROPOSED NATIONAL COUNCIL)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Lord President of the Council, what response has been received to the Goverment's proposal of a National Council for Wales; and at what date he hopes to announce the names of its members.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): This is a matter on which it is difficult to generalise, and it was not to be expected that Welsh opinion would be unanimous. From the reports which I have received I would, however, say that the general reaction has been that the proposed Council for Wales and Monmouthshire should prove an important addition to the existing machinery for dealing with Welsh Affairs and should be able to make a valuable contribution to the life of the Principality, particularly in the economic and cultural fields. As regards the second half of the Question, as I told the House in the Debate on 24th November, it is not intended to set up the Council until the New Year.

Mr. Price-White: Whilst I do not in any way criticise his proposal, would the Lord President agree that it would be possible in the interests both of Wales, first, and of His Majesty's Government, afterwards, to allow a reasonable period of time to gauge reaction in Wales to the proposal of the Government?

Mr. Morrison: It is not proposed to set up the Council until the New Year and I think by that time, allowing for the time that has elapsed since the Debate, we shall be able to form a reasonable judgment on the acceptability of the proposal to Wales generally.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "early in the New Year"? Is he aware that the representatives from Wales assembled yesterday and passed a unanimous resolution asking him to defer the setting up of this Council?

Mr. Morrison: I shall want some convincing evidence to show why it should be deferred. We must really make up our minds about things within a reasonable time and I think we can form a reasonable judgment by the time indicated. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not ask us to live under the doctrine of perpetual postponement.

Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate his interesting conclusions to the Minister of Defence?

Mr. Morrison: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, his smart observation is totally irrelevant to the Question on the Paper.

Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proposal has been very well received in South Wales, and that there are Welsh Members who are desirous of seeing this Council set up as soon as possible?

Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I have also seen some support for the proposal in North Wales. There are differences of opinion, and I understand that. We must take a balanced judgment at the end of the day.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Blacksmith, Ayrshire (Call-up)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the representations made by the Girvan branch of the National Farmers' Union asking him to reconsider the call-up of a blacksmith in the Pinmore and Barr district of Ayrshire, and in view of the inconvenience it will cause to the farmers in that district, if he will further defer the call-up of this blacksmith.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I have been unable to identify this case from the information given. If my hon. Friend will let me have further particulars, I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the National Farmers Union of this district have protested to his Department in Glasgow and is he aware that grave hardship is being inflicted on farmers who rely upon this blacksmith's shop for the shoeing of their horses?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, but if my hon. Friend will let me know the area in the Pinmore and Barr district where the trouble has arisen, I can find out what it is and what can be done.

Temporary Postmen (Coloured Applicants)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that, on Monday, 6th December, two unemployed British subjects of African descent, particulars of whom have been submitted to him, were refused employment as temporary postmen and informed by one of his officials that such employment was available to white applicants only; and if he will give an assurance that no racial or colour discrimination in the allocation of employment is permitted at any of his Department's offices.

Mr. Isaacs: My hon. Friend's allegations are unfounded. There is no racial or colour discrimination at local offices of my Department.

Mr. Driberg: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that assurance, may I ask—since there is clearly a conflict of evidence between two witnesses on one side and one official on the other—if he is quite certain that the allegations are unfounded?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. The evidence must not be coloured by the skin of the people concerned. In this case one of the men was offered a job on 5th November and had an appointment to go to the Post Office on 6th November but did not turn up. The other said he was not interested in a casual job. The Post Office are employing a number of coloured people.

Mr. Driberg: I am glad to hear it. Could my right hon. Friend say which of these men did not go for the job?

Mr. Isaacs: His name is James Amoonaquah.

B.B.C. and Musicians Union (Dispute)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Labour whether the Committee which he appointed in connection with the dispute between the B.B.C. and the Musicians Union has yet reported.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. I have recently received the report from this Committee which I have sent to the parties concerned. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library as soon as available.

Mr. Awbery: Can my right hon. Friend inform me if the report recommends the recognition of the trade union by the B.B.C.?

Mr. Isaacs: The question of recognition does not arise because there has been negotiation between the Musicians' Union and the B.B.C., but the report recommends the establishment of a joint consultative committee of both parties.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Would my right hon. Friend also consider appointing a committee to inquire into the recognition of other trade unions which the B.B.C. have refused to recognise in connection with Clause 8 of the Charter?

Mr. Isaacs: I should like to have notice of that; I know nothing about it.

Television Engineers (Discharges)

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a number of specially recruited engineers are now being discharged by the B.B.C. on the grounds of redundancy; and what steps he is taking to place these men in other employment.

Mr. Isaacs: The machinery of the Ministry of Labour is at the disposal of these men.

Commander Noble: Is the Minister aware that these men are labouring under a great grievance, as they maintain they were never led to believe they would not become established? Will he discuss the matter with the Postmaster-General?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir, certainly not. These men may consider they have a


grievance about their terms of employment, but they have a trade union which is recognised by the Ministry and represented on the joint consultative committee of the Ministry and I am sure they could get the matter adjusted.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

New Capital Issues

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in sanctioning new issues, the Capital Issues Committee assesses an applicant's requirements in relation only to the nominal value of the issue or also takes into consideration the probable proceeds.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): The Committee is mainly concerned with the amount of money expected to be raised by an issue.

Mr. Chamberlain: In a recent case Hoovers, who received sanction for £135,000, netted £900,000 by selling their 5s. shares at 34s. 6d. Does my right hon. Friend think that came within the cognisance of the Capital Issues Committee, and does he also think that it was in the national interest?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Capital Issues Committee took all the circumstances into account in arriving at their decision.

Mr. Cobb: Would my right hon. Friend consider in that connection whether it would not be advisable in the near future to offer some inducement to industries to put a greater proportion of their profits to capital account?

Universities (Capital Expenditure)

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much capital expenditure on universities has so far been sanctioned during the last three years.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): Figures of the total amount of capital expenditure initiated by Universities and University colleges are not readily available, but non-recurrent grants have been approved

during the last three academic years as follow:



£


1945–46
1,792,253


1946–47
3,089,250


1947–48
4,682,061


During the present academic year non-recurrent grants amounting to £5,624,894 have been approved up to date. In addition, grants have been approved in principle in respect of a number of schemes, the exact cost of which cannot yet be stated, but which will amount to a considerable sum.

Mr. Lindsay: How much of that money has been spent?

Mr. Jay: I could not say without notice.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Would my hon. Friend publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the major projects involved, giving the names of the Universities and the purposes of the projects?

Mr. Jay: I will certainly consider doing that.

Mr. Scollan: Would my hon. Friend say exactly what proportion of the sum granted last year was spent on new projects?

Mr. Jay: No. I could not give that information without notice. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put a Question down.

Mr. Rankin: Do those figures include amounts spent in Scottish universities?

Mr. Jay: I understand that they do.

Mr. Cobb: My hon. Friend will admit. will he not, that it is all very well making the money available, but what steps is he taking, in conjunction with the Ministry of Works and other Ministries, to see that materials are available to make it possible to spend the money?

Mr. Jay: We are taking a great many steps. The actual volume of capital work going on is greater than it has ever been before.

Special Contribution

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in connection with the special contribution for Income Tax, he is aware that numbers of those who are liable had not received their demands by 1st September and will


be unable to avail themselves of any discount for which they would be eligible by prepayment; and if he will consider making a concession to meet these cases and expedite the presentation of these still outstanding demands.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Anyone liable to the special contribution can estimate what his liability will be and can make a payment in advance; he will be entitled to the proper discount calculated from the date of payment whether or not he has then had a notice of assessment.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not so easy to estimate? Surely it is possible to get out these estimates in time so as to let every one know precisely where they stand? Is it not possible to follow the advice of the Lord President of the Council and wake up the Treasury on this matter?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The facts do not bear out what the hon. Member says. Out of £27½ million which has been received, over £23½ million represents payment before any assessment was sent.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: When does the right hon. Gentleman think that these assessments will be sent out, in view of the fact that from 1st January there will be a penalty upon anyone who does not pay, although I gather that only 20 per cent. of the assessments have been despatched?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Inland Revenue are doing their best. I understand that the assessments are now going out at a much more rapid rate than was possible a month or two ago.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Is it not the case that the more the Inland Revenue default in their duty of sending out these demands, the more they will secure in the shape of 2 per cent. interest? Is not that quite an intolerable and inequitable arrangement?

Captain Crowder: Why is delay taking place not only in sending out assessments, but in getting the figures agreed? It is a very complicated Finance Act and the right hon. Gentleman's own staff is not adequate to deal with it. Would he not reconsider the charge of 2 per cent.?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Inland Revenue are doing their best. I think that hon.

and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are making much more of this than the facts warrant. When my right hon. and learned Friend introduced this matter in his Budget he invited those who were liable, to make a payment in advance of assessment. It was then realised that it would not be too easy and would take time, and a very reasonable request was made that those who were liable—they know roughly what their liability is—should send in what would be due.

Mr. Stanley: Is it not a fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer appealed to people to take advantage of the provision by which they could pay early and get a discount? Did he ever point out to the House of Commons, when discussing this matter, that at the time when they became legally liable, under penalty, only one-fifth of the people who were liable would know what they had to pay?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: My right hon. and learned Friend appealed to those who were liable, to pay in advance of assessment, and as an inducement it was indicated by him that a discount would be allowed on such payment.

Mr. Nally: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member who raises this question with him, borrowed a very good lead pencil from me four weeks ago, and I am still waiting for it to be returned?

Sir Ralph Glyn: Was any consideration given to those cases where trustees reside abroad and are unable to agree to this contribution being paid until they get the assessment from His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is a matter of detail for the Inland Revenue to be consulted upon directly. We have realised that difficulties arise on the grounds mentioned by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) as well as on others.

Women Office Cleaners (Pay)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the annual cost of increasing the pay of women cleaners employed in Government Departments from 1s. 7¾id. per hour to 2s.; and if he will now agree to do this, in view of the early hour at which they commence work and the distances they have to travel from their homes to their work.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: £225,000 directly. The present agreed rates, as adjusted in the offer recently made by my Department, take account of all the relevant factors of their employment.

Mr. Lipson: Does that answer mean that the Government are refusing the request for a rate of 2s. per hour? Does my right hon. Friend think that that is an unreasonable remuneration in the light of the present value of money and other circumstances?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The short answer to that is that if those concerned are dissatisfied, they have the usual trade union machinery which they can use.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Would my right hon. Friend communicate with his right hon. and learned Friend with a view to receiving a deputation of the women Members of Parliament, who are shocked at this state of affairs?

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that if the miners, engineers, railwaymen or any other section of the workers were offered a farthing per hour increase, there would be a stoppage that would paralyse the country at such an insult?

Mr. Awbery: Is industrial machinery operated in this case in regard to these women and their demand for an increase in the rate of pay?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is obvious that wage agreements cannot be negotiated across the Floor of the House at Question Time. There is adequate machinery available. If those concerned are dissatisfied with this award, they can quite easily take it to arbitration.

Mr. Lipson: In view of the mean attitude taken up by the Treasury, I beg to give notice that I shall take the earliest opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment.

Investment Income (Royalties)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider, in connection with the taxation of investment income, excluding royalties from consideration as investment income.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I assume that the hon. Member's Question relates to the special contribution. Royalties are in

some circumstances treated as earned income for Income Tax purposes, and if so, do not form part of the recipient's investment income on which contribution is payable. For the rest, my right hon. and learned Friend does not see his way to propose any alteration of the existing law.

Mr. De la Bère: Am I to understand that with regard to the special contribution, royalties are not included in that? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman has told us—that they are not included in the special contribution?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It all depends upon whether they rank as earned or unearned income. In some cases certain royalties are unearned income. In a very large proportion of cases they are earned income.

Mr. Benn Levy: Are we to understand that if they are earned income, they are exempt, but if they are unearned income they are not?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We are talking here about the special contribution which only applies to unearned income—investment income.

SENIOR ARMY OFFICERS (SPEECHES)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. PLATTS-MILLS—: TO ask the Secretary of State for War if the assertion that the U.S.S.R. was seeking world domination and was preparing for aggressive war, contained in the address given on 12th December to Territorial Army commanding officers and adjutants in the Southern Command by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Lieutenant-General Sir John Harding, was made with his knowledge and approval.

Mr. SWINGLER—: TO ask the Secretary of State for War whether he gave prior approval to the speech delivered by Lieutenant-General Sir John Harding, G.O.C.-in-C., Southern Command, at Salisbury, on 12th December; what regulations he has issued in respect of pronouncements by general officers on our relations with foreign Powers; and if he has any statement to make.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): There are two Questions down on the Order Paper which have not been called, because they are very low down in the list, but you, Mr. Speaker, have allowed me to reply. The numbers are 133 and 134. The answer to Question No. 133 and the first part of Question No. 134 is, "No, Sir." As regards the second part of Question 134, King's Regulations paragraphs 547 and 548 govern the publications and communications to the Press by military officers generally. No specific reference is made in these Regulations to relations with foreign Powers, but senior officers are not expected to make statements on them.

Mr. Platts-Mills: While I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for making this statement, I am sure I speak for all sections of the House when I ask him—

Mr. Churchill: Never.

Mr. Platts-Mills: —not to take too serious an attitude with regard to this obvious indiscretion. Because while Cabinet Ministers—yes, and ex-Cabinet Ministers—and Archbishops, not to say the most disreputable sections of the commercial and political community, do and are continuing to spread this abominable lie about the Soviet Union, perhaps it is not surprising, however gallant an officer he may be—

Mr. Speaker: This is a propaganda speech and not a question at all. It is quite improper.

Mr. Swingler: May I ask the Minister whether he would draw the attention of senior officers to the fact that political propaganda must not be made on a public platform, and will he tell the House what penalties would be incurred by a private soldier who made political propaganda on a military platform?

Mr. Shinwell: I think that where it is a matter perhaps of disciplinary action, it had better be left to the Chief of the Imperial General Staff.

Mr. Gallacher: May I ask the Minister if it is not the case—I wish the Leader of the Opposition would try to show a little patience. He keeps muttering away there, and making strange noises. May I ask the Minister is not it the case that

other ranks are allowed to attend political meetings, but are not allowed to participate in political meetings and make political speeches, and should that not apply to officers as well?

Mr. Shinwell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Air-Commodore Harvey.

Mr. Piratin: On a point of Order. With all due respect to yourself, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for War was on his feet, about to reply to my hon. Friend, when you called on the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey). May I ask that the Minister of War be allowed to answer, as it is his desire to do?

Mr. Speaker: The supplementary question was not directed to the two Questions on the Order Paper. It was going far wider. Only one matter is dealt with in the Questions and the hon. Member was raising the whole question.

Mr. Piratin: Surely, if the Secretary of State for War himself was on his feet eagerly desirous of answering, he could be allowed to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Whatever the Secretary of State for War wants to do, if I do not want him to do it, he cannot do it.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. It did appear to me that the right hon. Gentleman made one statement which needed immediate clarification. He appeared to suggest that this was a case which might call for disciplinary action by the Chief of the Imperial General Staff. Would he make it clear whether that is so or not? If that should be the case, many of us would take the strongest exception.

Mr. Shinwell: I did not suggest that disciplinary action was about to be taken. I was merely replying to the Suggestion that it might be necessary to take disciplinary action, and my reply was that if disciplinary action was required to be taken, I would prefer to leave the matter in the hands of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff.

Mr. Churchill: Am I to understand that in using the expression "disciplinary action" the right hon. Gentleman was referring to hypothetical cases, and not to this particular case?

Mr. Platts-Mills: Why not to this particular case?

Mr. Shinwell: That point, if I may say so with respect, is irrelevant. It has not arisen.

Mr. Churchill: Hypothetical cases are, surely, confined to those which have not in fact arisen.

Mr. Shinwell: I always understood, Mr. Speaker, that you objected to hypothetical questions being put.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Would the right hon. Friend make it clear that the disciplinary committee in any action that they may take, in this, or in any hypothetical case, will apply exactly the same rules to commissioned as to other ranks?

Mr. Shinwell: I certainly can give an assurance that so far as the Regulations provide, the same treatments will be meted out to everybody.

Mr. Speaker: All this is getting quite hypothetical and is not in Order.

PALESTINE (MISSING R.A.F. AIRCRAFT)

Air-Commodore Harvey (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Air, if he will make a statement regarding the R.A.F. Mosquito aircraft which is missing from a flight in the Eastern Mediterranean area on 20th November, 1948.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): As a result of two Israeli broadcasts and one Israeli Press report, it is believed that a R.A.F. Mosquito from Middle East Command which has been reported missing has been shot down by an Israeli fighter. The matter is being taken up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with the United Nations Mediator. I should like to express my sympathy with the relatives of the two members of the crew.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the Secretary of State for Air tell the House what the flight plan of this aircraft was that is, where it should have been at the time of the accident; and will he give an assurance to the House that the

Government will pursue this matter with the utmost vigour to bring about satisfaction from whoever may be to blame.

Mr. Henderson: All I can say is that all the Mosquitos in Middle East Command are photographic reconnaissance machines, unarmed, of course. This Mosquito was one of these. It was on a training flight. As regards the last part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question, I think we can take it that the Foreign Secretary will do his best to establish the facts of this matter.

Mr. Eden: Could the Secretary of State for Air tell us a little more about how this could have happened. Is he aware where this aeroplane was? Surely it could not have been on a photographic flight over an area where, to put it mildly, the international situation is extremely tense?

Mr. Henderson: I did not say it was on a photographic flight. I said it was on a training flight. Perhaps I can tell the House what we picked up from the Israeli broadcasts, that at noon on 20th November an Israeli fighter intercepted and brought down a Mosquito which had been flying over Israeli territory south of Tel Aviv at a height of 28,000 feet. The Mosquito fell into the sea and parts of the wreckage have been washed ashore.

Mr. Edgar Granville: Is there any record of wireless communication between this particular Mosquito and its base during the flight?

Mr. Henderson: No, Sir.

Mr. Churchill: Why is it necessary that one of our Mosquitos should undertake a training flight over this very dangerous and delicate area?

Mr. Henderson: I am afraid that I am not able to say why it should be necessary. All I can say is that in fact a crew had received orders to carry out the flight. I can only give the facts.

Mr. Churchill: I presume that His Majesty's Government intended to pursue this matter with the utmost rigour in order to ascertain whether cruel and outrageous measures were not taken against our aeroplane? Is not that so?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir. I indicated that the Mediator had been asked to


contact the Israeli Government, and I am quite prepared to indicate the sort of lines which we have asked him to take. If the Mediator can establish the interpretation of facts as we see them, he should make strong representations to the Jewish authorities.

Mr. Churchill: Is it not a very roundabout way to go through a mediator and so forth, from one to the other? If we had representation on the spot, should we not be able to put these matters more directly and even more sharply?

Mr. Henderson: That is a matter which should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman pursue with equal rigour—I think that was the word—the inquiry as to who ordered this training flight over this area, and will he see how nearly he can bring home this occurrence to the policy of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary?

Air-Commodore Harvey: In the meantime, will the right hon. Gentleman issue instructions to all Air Force commands concerned that, in future, no aircraft are to fly in that area unless they are armed?

Mr. Henderson: I certainly will bear in mind what the hon, and gallant Gentleman has just said.

Mr. Gallacher: If the question should arise of compensation for those who lost their lives in this plane, how can the Government hold the Government of Israel responsible, unless His Majesty's Government recognise the Government of Israel?

Mr. Henderson: Perhaps my hon. Friend would put that question on the Paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: Can the Leader of the House tell us the Business for the week when we resume in the New Year?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Business for the first week after the Recess will be as follows:
Tuesday, 18th January—It is proposed to move a Motion relating to the arrangements

for the consideration of Private Members' Bills;
Third Reading of the Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Bill;
Committee and remaining stages of the Railway and Canal Commission (Abolition) Bill (Lords); and
Report and Third Reading of the Savings Banks Bill.
Wednesday, 19th January—Second Reading of the Agricultural Marketing Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; and
Consideration of the Motion to approve the Fish Sales (Charges) Order.
Thursday, 20th January—Second Reading of the Solicitors, Public Notaries, etc., Bill; and of the Minister of Food (Financial Powers) Bill; and
Consideration of the Motion to approve the Agreement between the Postmaster-General and the B.B.C. relating to Broadcasting in the Far East.
Friday, 21st January—Second Reading of the National Theatre Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
The Motion relating to Private Members' time appeared on the Order Paper this morning and it will be considered on Tuesday, 18th January, as I have already announced. Without going into detail, perhaps it would be convenient. Mr. Speaker, for me to remind hon. Members that, assuming the Motion is agreed to, under arrangements to be made by you, Sir, the ballot list will be placed in the "No" Lobby on Tuesday and Wednesday, 25th and 26th January, from 2.30 p.m. till the rising of the House so that hon. Members can enter their names; the draw will take place in a Committee room upstairs on Thursday, 27th January, and Bills will be presented at 11 a.m. on Friday, 28th January and dates selected.
The first of the seven Fridays which it is proposed to set apart for the Second Readings of Private Members' Bills will be Friday, 11th February.

Mr. Snadden: In regard to the Agricultural Marketing Bill which is a United Kingdom Measure, will a Scottish Minister take part in that Debate?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid that I cannot give a definite answer, but I will make inquiries.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Will the House have another opportunity of debating the proposed Council for Wales having regard to the widespread criticism of the proposal by local authorities in Wales before the Council is set up?

Mr. Morrison: I hardly think that would be useful. I very much doubt if a further Debate, in which Welsh Members would obviously take the main part, would result in a unanimous expression of opinion on this subject. One must make a judgment in the light of the discussion proceeding in Wales.

Mr. Beswick: Early after the Recess, might we have a Debate on foreign affairs?

Mr. Morrison: I should not have thought so. We have only just had one.

Mr. Driberg: It was too short.

Mr. Morrison: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I think that it was adequate for the occasion. I do not think that there is occasion for another one yet.

Mrs. Leah Manning: In view of the slighting references made during the recent foreign affairs Debate about the United Nations, will my right hon. Friend find an opportunity for us to discuss the United Nations at an early date?

Mr. Morrison: With great respect, I see no reason for it. We have just had a Debate on foreign affairs. We cannot be perpetually debating foreign affairs. There are many other subjects in which hon. Members are interested.

Mr. Beswick: Might I suggest to the Lord President that during the one and a half days at the end of last week we only had voiced opinions which we already knew, and that there are a good many people in this country represented on the back benches who would like to express their opinions?

Mr. Morrison: From my own point of view I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said, but there it is. The Debate so went, and I cannot help it. I think it is a bit out of proportion when we have just had a Debate on foreign affairs for hon. Members to be seeking another one straight away.

NOTICES OF MOTION (SIGNATURES)

Mr. Speaker: Before we get on to the Business of the day, here is a little announcement which might help hon. Members in regard to "early day" Motions. I was asked some time ago to arrange that when Members withdraw their names from "early day" Motions a notification of the fact should be published in Votes and Proceedings. I gave directions on 29th November for this to be done by a memorandum at the end of the daily list of "Notices given," or on Saturday mornings, at the end of the weekly Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, colloquially known as the Weekly Order Book. This procedure has been carried out since 29th November, but not retrospectively.

BILLS PRESENTED

WAR DAMAGE (PUBLIC UTILITY UNDERTAKINGS, &C.) BILL

"to repeal section seventy of the War Damage Act, 1943, to make provision with respect to war damage to immovable property, goods and commodities which belonged to certain undertakings or in which both such undertakings and others had interests and to war damage causing obstruction in waterways, to amend provisions of the said Act as respects such undertakings and otherwise in certain respects, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Mr. Glenvil Hall, the Solicitor-General, Mr. John Edwards and Mr. Callaghan; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 18th January, and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

JURIES BILL

"to provide for the making of payments in respect of jury service in Great Britain; to abolish special juries in Great Britain except in commercial causes tried in London: to abolish the privilege of landed persons in relation to jury trial in Scotland; to empower the Parliament of Northern Ireland to make laws providing for the payment of jurors in His Majesty's High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland and the abolition of


special juries in that Court; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. Ede; supported by Mr. Woodburn, the Attorney-General, the Lord Advocate and Mr. Younger; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 18th January, and to be printed. [Bill 45.]

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

"to amend the law relating to agriculture, including certain enactments relating to milk and dairies," presented by Mr. Thomas Williams; supported by Mr. Ede, Mr. Woodburn, Mr. Glenvil Hall, Mr. George Brown and Mr. Thomas Fraser; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 18th January, and to be printed. [Bill 46.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Motion standing in the name of Mr. Secretary Woodburn relating to the Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Bill and in Committee on Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) [Money] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House.)—[The Prime Minister.]

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)

House, at its rising Tomorrow, to adjourn till Tuesday, 18th January.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — LEGAL AID AND SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.49 p.m.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Douglas Johnston): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The objects of the Bill are, first, to make legal aid and advice more readily available in Scotland for persons of moderate or small means; second, to make provision for the establishment of a Society of solicitors in Scotland; and, third, to make provision for the establishment of a fund out of moneys provided by solicitors in Scotland for the purpose of compensating persons who have suffered loss through the defalcations of solicitors or their assistants in Scotland.
Since the fifteenth century, counsel and solicitors have been available to assist with their professional advice and help poor persons in Scotland. The Act of the Scots Parliament of 1424, which appears to be the origin of this practice, is in striking and imperative terms. I think the House may care to know what it states. It provides that:
if there be any poor creature who, for lack of cunning, cannot pursue his cause, the King, for the love of God, shall ordain the judge, before whom the cause falls to be determined, to purvey and get a loyal and wise advocate to follow the poor person's cause…and if the judge refuses to do the law evenly as is before laid, the party complaining shall have recourse to the King, who shall rigorously punish such judges so that it shall be an example to all others.
The obligation laid by this Act upon the legal profession has gradually developed into a well-recognised, well-established and comprehensive legal system for the assistance of poor persons in the courts in Scotland. Under the system, legal advice and assistance in litigation is available in the Court of Session, in the High Court of Justiciary and in the Sheriff Courts.
The existing arrangements for litigation in the Court of Session, are that the Faculty of Advocates, which occupies the same position as the Bar in England, annually nominates six counsel, known as counsel for the poor, and the two main


societies in Edinburgh, the Society of Writers to the Signet and the Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Court, nominate certain persons to act as solicitors in poor causes. These persons carry on, under the supervision of the court, causes on behalf of these poor persons. In the Sheriff Court, practitioners practising before the court elect from volunteers a number to act for poor persons. In the event of there being insufficient volunteers, the Sheriff nominates sufficient persons to act.
The workings of the present procedure may be illustrated by detailing what happens to a poor person in Scotland who wishes to make use of the procedure. He ascertains from a lawyer, his friends or the Sheriff's Clerk who are the poor person's lawyers. He goes to the poor person's solicitor, lays the facts before him and gives him some details of his means. He completes a declaration in the form of an affidavit as to means. If the solicitor is satisfied about the matter, he completes a memorandum setting out the facts. The certificate of means and the memorandum are sent to what are called the reporters on probabilis causa. These are members of the profession whose task it is to decide whether or not the applicant has a reasonable prospect of success in his proposed action. If the reporters on probabilis causa decide that he has a reasonable prospect of success in the action, the matter is remitted formally to the court, and the court formally appoints a solicitor and counsel, who is selected from the six poor person's counsel appointed from the Faculty, to appear and conduct the litigation on behalf of the applicant. Thereafter, the case proceeds exactly in the same way as if it were for a wealthy client, with the perhaps noteworthy exception that neither solicitor nor counsel is entitled to demand or receive any fees whatever for their services. This system has continued for some 500 years.
The main criticisms of the system are these. First of all, there is the fact that it is limited to persons of very small means. At the present moment, it is limited to a person of an income of about £3 week, with an allowance of 12s. 6d. for each dependant. The result is that many persons who perhaps have good grounds of actions against someone are unable to pursue their legal rights because

of inability to pay. The second limitation is that all that is provided is legal advice and assistance. The poor litigant is still required to pay the solicitor's outlay, such as bringing witnesses, the cost of copying documents, and so on, and that, of course, as members of the profession will know, is a very substantial part of any bill of costs or expenses.
Thirdly, the litigant is always faced with the prospect of meeting the other side's costs or expenses if he loses the action, and, as the learned Attorney-General mentioned yesterday in dealing with a somewhat similar Bill, the law is not an exact science, and, accordingly, no lawyer can advise that an applicant is certain of success. Fourthly, the system does not extend to the smaller courts, such as the Burgh court and the J.P. court. The last objection to the system is that the burden placed on the profession is very heavy. It takes time and trouble to appear for a poor person, and, very often, solicitors incur substantial expense which they can never hope to recover. Very often, they do so because they think that it is essential to justice that they should do so. I know that, in a recent murder case which had some notoriety in Scotland, a solicitor incurred a bill of over £40 most of which he had to pay out of his own pocket. The Crown endeavoured to assist in so far as it could, but the powers of the Crown to pay for costs properly incurred by the defence is very limited.
It was in somewhat similar circumstances in England, that the committee was set up under the chairmanship of Lord Rushcliffe. Following upon the Report of Lord Rushcliffe's Committee, a somewhat similar committee was set up in Scotland under the chairmanship of Mr. John Cameron, now the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland. The terms of reference of that committee were:
To consider the detailed recommendations of the Rushcliffe Committee and to frame a corresponding scheme for Scotland.
The report received wide publicity in Scotland and in the legal and other Press, and the principles embodied in the report are duly followed in this Bill and in the White Paper which sets out the proposed scheme.
Following the King's Speech recently, in which was announced the Government's intention of proceeding with a scheme for legal aid in Scotland, the Lord Advocate called a meeting and invited to it a representative of the Faculty of Advocates and the Presidents of the larger societies of solicitors in Scotland. I should explain, as I will in greater detail later, that there is no one society in Scotland which represents solicitors. The presidents or their representatives of the societies who were invited came from the Society of Writers to the Signet, the Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Court, the Society of Advocates in Aberdeen, the Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow, the Faculty of Procurators in Dundee, and the Scottish Law Agents Society.
There were two meetings. The first was on 11th October, 1948, at which the general principles now contained in the Bill and the White Paper were discussed. After that meeting, the draft of what is now the White Paper was transmitted to the gentlemen who had attended the meeting, and they were asked to discuss it with their Bills Committee. Thereafter, on 29th October, these same gentlemen attended upon the Lord Advocate at his invitation, and as far as he understood, and as I understood, expressed approval of the general principles embodied in this Bill and in the scheme set out in the White Paper. There were, it is proper to say, reservations on minor points, but I understood, and my right hon. and learned Friend understood, that there was substantial and complete agreement on the principles.
It is proper to say that the draft Bill was not shown to these gentlemen for the good reason that it had not been presented to Parliament at that date. It would, I understand, have been a breach of the Privilege of this House to have shown these gentlemen the draft Bill. I regret having to trouble the House with these details, but I have done so because in the Scottish Press in recent days it has been represented that there was no consultation with the legal profession in Scotland before the presentation of the Bill to this House. My right hon. and learned Friend had no intention of not consulting the legal profession, and, indeed, has consulted it so far as he could consistent with his duty to this House.
Now I turn to the Bill. In doing so, may I say that I intend dealing only with the general principles and not with the details which will require consideration in Committee.

Mr. Spence: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the legal profession were fully aware of the terms of Clause 11 when they gave general agreement to the Bill?

Mr. Johnston: No, Sir, the legal profession were not fully aware of Clause 11 because it could not be shown to them, but they were told the objects of the Bill and the scope of the Bill.
The Bill provides that legal aid, that is, assistance in litigation—and "aid" has a very wide connotation—shall be available in the more important courts in Scotland. These courts are set out in the First Schedule to the Bill and are: the House of Lords, the Court of Session, the Lands Valuation Appeal Court, the Scottish Land Court, the Sheriff Court, the High Court of Justiciary, and the J.P. and the burgh Courts. They are what an ordinary person would term "the courts" in Scotland.
It will be noted from examination of the Schedule that certain proceedings are excepted. All the tribunals before which an advocate or a solicitor might appear have not been included, and certain proceedings have been excepted. The reason is that while we are very conscious that this Bill is an extension of something which has gone on before we are not quite sure how burdened the profession may become as a result of an extension of the present measure. Accordingly, it is the desire of my right hon. and learned Friend that we should proceed slowly. It will be noted that there is the power by the affirmative Resolution procedure to extend both the courts before which this procedure will he available and the causes of action.
The Bill goes on to provide by Clauses 2, 3 and 4 that legal aid shall be made available to a person whose disposable income does not exceed £420 a year and whose capital does not exceed £500, and it appears that he cannot proceed without legal aid. I emphasise the words "disposable income and capital" for it will be seen from Clause 4 and from the, Second Schedule that in assessing


a person's disposable income or capital, what is meant is his income or capital after the deduction of tax, rates, rent and other items specified in the Bill. Further, it is provided that certain items are to be disregarded in assessing a person's total income. The result is that a substantial number of persons in Scotland will have made available to them a system of legal aid.
A person who has a disposable income—that is, a single person—of less than £156 a year and a disposable capital of less than £75 a year will not be asked to contribute anything at all to the scheme. If his disposable income and capital are beyond those limits, he may be required to contribute to the cost of the litigation, subject to certain maximum amounts, part of which are set out in the scheme, and others which will be provided for by regulation. The ascertainment of a person's means will be a matter for the Assistance Board.
I would particularly draw the attention of the House to Clause 2 (3) which provides that an assisted person's liability under an award of expenses against him, in the event of his being unsuccessful in litigation, is limited. My own experience is—and I am sure it is that of most persons who practice in the courts—that a large number of persons are deterred from the pursuing of their rights because of the fear that if they are unsuccessful they will have to meet what may be a substantial bill of costs or an account of expenses for the other side's counsel's fees, solicitor's fees, and so forth. Clause 2 (3) gives the court or the tribunal power to modify the award of expenses which may be made against the losing assisted litigant. It is, I think, an important provision. A further right which is created is the right of any person who appears to need it to receive legal advice—that is, oral legal advice—for a nominal fee of half a crown. When I say half a crown, that is the fee suggested in the Bill.
The members of the legal profession who will provide this legal aid are such advocates and solicitors who care to volunteer. They will join panels to be set up under the scheme. The assisted litigant may select any solicitor and any counsel whom he favours from these panels. The counsel and solicitors will be remunerated

from the Legal Aid Fund—that is, partly from monies provided by Parliament and partly from contributions from such of those persons who are called upon to make payment into the fund, but no person will be called upon to pay directly to any solicitor or counsel. That is provided by Clause 5.
I understand that the terms of Clause 5 (2) have caused uneasiness in the legal profession. This Subsection provides that:
Any practising solicitor or advocate shall be entitled to have his name on the appropriate panels…unless there is good reason for excluding him….
The intention is that under Clause 7 (8) the scheme will provide that the disqualification of undesirable persons will be in the hands of a committee of the solicitors' branch of the profession and in the hands of the Faculty of Advocates or a committee thereof. But in view of the disquiet which has been aroused, my right hon. and learned Friend intends at a later stage to add a further provision to the effect that in any such case of disqualification there shall be a right of appeal to the court.
Clauses 7, 8 and 9 provide for the administration and formulation of the scheme. I emphasise that it is intended that the scheme shall be formulated and operated by the profession itself. The legal profession in Scotland has had a long and honourable record, and has much experience in the administration of the present Poor Persons procedure on which the scheme in this Bill is largely based. It is, therefore, thought advisable that the main burden of the scheme should rest on the profession. As the Cameron Committee realises, there must of course be a Minister responsible to Parliament for the scheme and for the expenditure of public money on the scheme, and the Bill provides that the Secretary of State shall be that Minister.
The scheme will be formulated by the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates, anal will be administered through, first, a central committee, then local committees in the more populous places, and local representatives in other areas. The administration of the scheme departs a little from the Cameron Report in that it has been made more simple. A tier or a level of administration has been removed. It will be the duty of those local committees to do two things: first, to


decide what contribution, if any, the assisted person shall make to the fund; and, second, to decide whether or not he has a reasonable prospect of success in the proposed litigation.
I think the operation of the scheme might best be explained by considering what would happen to a person who feels that he has suffered a legal wrong and wishes to make use of the scheme. If he knows who are the persons on the panel, or if he knows of a solicitor on the panel in his district, he will presumably go to that solicitor. If he does not know, he will make application to the committee in his area, who will give him a list of solicitors whom he may consult. He will go to the solicitor of his choice and give him some account of his means and of the legal wrong which he alleges he has suffered. If there appears to be a prima facie case, the solicitor will then prepare the application and remit it to the local committee for their consideration. If there appear to be reasonable grounds for taking proceedings, the local committee will refer the matter to the National Assistance Board who will then ascertain whether or not his means are such as to bring him within the scheme.
If the applicant's disposable income and capital—I again emphasise the word "disposable"—are within the limits which I have described, he will be entitled to the benefit of the scheme. If the applicant is eligible, the local committee will then assess the contribution, if any, which he will make to the scheme, subject to this, that the maximum amount which he may be called upon to pay will be assessed by the National Assistance officer. A legal certificate entitling him to full legal aid will then be issued, and after that the litigation will proceed in the normal way. If the solicitor thinks that it is advisable to obtain the services of counsel, that will be available and will form a charge upon the fund. If the assisted litigant wins the case, any expenses recovered will be paid in to the Legal Aid Fund and will so diminish the applicant's liability for any payment that may be necessary. If the assisted litigant loses the case, his liability for the expenses of the other side will be limited to such sum as the court considers reasonable, having regard to his means and the other circumstances.
The procedure in criminal cases has to be somewhat more simple. There will be

a simple procedure in these cases in which it is not possible to investigate means because of lack of time, but in cases where there is time—that is, in most cases where the man pleads not guilty—he will receive assistance up to a certain stage, and after that it will be necessary to make inquiries as to the person's means before the assistance is continued.
It is difficult to estimate the number of persons who will benefit as a result of the proposals contained in this Bill and in the White Paper, but it is certain that the majority of persons charged with criminal offences in Scotland will receive assistance under this scheme, and that a large number of persons who are involved in civil litigation will receive assistance or will be eligible to receive assistance under this scheme. The estimate by the Cameron Committee was that the whole operation of the scheme would cost approximately £250,000.
May I turn from the legal aid part of the Bill to Part II, which deals with other matters? I will be very short on this part. First, it provides for the establishment of the Law Society of Scotland and a solicitors' guarantee fund. This part of the Bill reproduces, with certain modifications, the provisions of the Solicitors Amendment (Scotland) Bill which was introduced into another place last Session by Lord Normand, and which by agreement was not proceeded with. It is a Measure for which solicitors in Scotland have pressed for a considerable period, and which has been agreed by the General Council of Solicitors and my right hon. and learned Friend.
At present there is no unified legal society in Scotland which can speak with one voice for the profession and I know that, so far as the law officers for Scotland are concerned, such a society would be welcomed. I should add that there will be no restriction on membership of this society apart from the possession of a practising certificate which will be issued by the society and which, in the meantime, will be issued by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. Any person can get a practising certificate who has the ordinary professional qualifications.
The second thing which this part of the Bill does is to provide for the establishment of a guarantee fund to compensate persons who may suffer loss by reason of the dishonesty of a solicitor


to whom money has been entrusted or his servants. These cases are fortunately rare, but for a very long time the profession has felt that such cases are a blot upon the profession and that provision should be made so that persons who suffer such loss should be recompensed. This fund will be set up and each solicitor will contribute to it. It is anticipated that the annual subscription will be approximately £5.
The third thing done by this part of the Bill is that it requires a solicitor to keep a separate banking account for clients' money and ensures that solicitors will not unknowingly use clients' money for business purposes. This provides for proper accounting and it is also an essential safeguard both for the solicitor and his client and for the operation of the guarantee fund. There are a number of other minor matters in this second part of the Bill, but perhaps it is unnecessary for me to touch on them at this time. There are also, no doubt, a number of points in the Bill which require detailed examination in Committee. My right hon. Friend and I shall receive gratefully any suggestions for the betterment of this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House as an endeavour to meet several acknowledged defects in the law of Scotland.

4.23 p.m.

Lieut-Commander Clark Hutchison: As the opening speaker for His Majesty's Opposition in this Debate this afternoon, I have, first, a very pleasant and rather unusual duty to perform. It is to congratulate the hon. and learned Solicitor-General for Scotland on the double event which has taken place in that today he has made his maiden speech both as an hon. Member of this House and as a Member of His Majesty's Government. I am particularly pleased to have the privilege of tendering my congratulations because I know of and share in the esteem in which the hon. and learned Solicitor-General for Scotland is held both by all hon. Members in all parties in this House and by his legal brethren in Scotland. During the past eight months it has been the fate of the hon. and learned Gentleman to concentrate mainly on legal work and when he took his seat last February, he also, if I may use an ecclesiastical expression, took the veil so far as making public

utterances in this House was concerned. Today, however, the veil has been cast aside, with most pleasing results, and we have listened to a most lucid and persuasive speech upon a subject in which we know the hon. and learned Solicitor-General is deeply interested and on which he is particularly well-informed. We hope, therefore, that henceforth he will take a leading part in discussions on Scottish affairs, both on the Floor of this House and in the Grand Committee.
This is undoubtedly a Measure of very great importance and interest to the people of Scotland and to the legal profession in Scotland—and, of course, in Scotland we rejoice in a large number of lawyers, being an argumentative race. As the Solicitor-General remarked in his opening speech, it is necessary that this Measure should be examined with great care. I am sure it will receive the scrupulous attention of Scottish hon. Members both today and later, when the Bill is remitted to Grand Committee. We on this side of the House have been appalled during the last few days to learn from the correspondence and editorial columns of the Scottish Press, and from representations which we have received from the various legal bodies in Scotland, that there has been a lack of consultation and discussion on the proposals laid down in this Bill between the Members of His Majesty's Government and the appropriate representatives of the legal societies.
In his opening speech the Solicitor-General made reference to the fact that two meetings were held in October between the Lord Advocate and certain representatives of the legal societies, but it seems that these consultations have not been very fruitful, or perhaps they have not been fully understood by the parties concerned, because unhappily some professional people in Scotland are labouring under a distinct sense of grievance. We hope therefore that adequate time will be given between the Second Reading and the Committee stage for the fullest consultation to take place so that the various legal bodies may hold their meetings and that there may be full discussion of the provisions of this Bill.
The general intentions of the Bill are, first, to provide legal aid free or at small cost to persons of modest means over a very wide field of legal problems and, second, to remove some of the heavy


financial burdens which are at present shouldered by representatives of the legal profession in providing free assistance. We consider these objectives are highly commendable. At the same time, I must say we are extremely critical of some of the provisions of this Bill which seem to us to depart in a somewhat radical manner from the principles and proposals which were laid down in the Cameron Report, a Report which has been generally acceptable to the people of Scotland. For that reason we shall, during the later stages of this Bill, seek to delete or amend various of the Clauses in order to meet these objections.
I find myself in some difficulty this afternoon, for I am not a lawyer although, strangely enough, by coincidence, I succeeded in the representation of West Edinburgh two gentlemen who afterwards occupied the highest judicial position in Scotland, so I think I have some sort of connection with the law through my constituency. I, therefore, embark upon an examination of the terms of this Bill with something of the sentiment and spirit of adventure of the explorer advancing into a strange land. Sailors as a rule are apt, perhaps mistakenly, to be a little shy of lawyers, but I have it on the authority of no less a person than Mr. Rudyard Kipling that the converse is also true and, as the season of greater leisure is approaching, I commend the works of that gentleman to the Members on the Government Benches because they might find them very much more stimulating than the works of the late Mr. Marx. Perhaps, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General will remember a particular passage which appears in Kipling's short story entitled "The Devil and the Deep Sea":
The mariner cannot tell or act a lie in the face of the sea or mislead a tempest; but, as lawyers have discovered, he makes up for chances withheld when he returns to shore, an affidavit in either hand.
I hope, however, we shall be able to keep the proceedings on this Bill on a much higher plane than was envisaged by Mr. Kipling in that story.
I want first to say a word on a matter of general principle, and that is the relationship which exists between the legal profession and the State as represented by the Secretary of State for Scotland, as this is a matter which looms very largely indeed in this Measure, and is one

which we and the members of the legal profession in Scotland regard as being of vital importance. Then I shall proceed to a brief review of some of the main provisions in the Bill. I begin by reminding the House that the rule of law is something worth preserving, and is, indeed, the only true basis upon which any civilized community can exist. The position was, I think, put with admirable clarity by Lord Blades in his speech at the centenary dinner of the Glasgow Juridical Society on 12th March this year, an extract from which I should like to read to the House. He was replying to the toast of the Courts of Justice. According to "The Scotsman" of 13th March, 1948, he said:
The Courts of Justice were the guardians of tile liberty of every man and woman, and the strong bulwark between the Executive and the subject. Never more were they necessary than in modern times. Those now in middle-age have been brought up to the idea that the freedom of the subject was freedom from interference by the Crown.
Now, in the name of planning, our freedom and activities were cribb'd, cabin'd and confin'd by countless regulations which nine-tenths of the population of the country never saw, and the other tenth, including the Judges of the Court of Session, did not understand. They on the Bench could do nothing about ridding the country of those fetters; they must interpret them in accordance with the law of the land, and it was for those who were not fettered to see to it that the great influence and power of the Courts was not impinged upon by any bureaucratic control.
Others of our judges and professors of law, I would add, have within the past two years on several occasions referred to the dangers of the Executive's taking over functions which should more properly be exercised by the courts. It is interesting and reassuring to know that their views have been sustained by no less a person than the present Lord Chancellor. For example, an address of his to the English Assembly was quoted by Lord Birnam at a dinner of the Glasgow Juridical Society on 14th March, 1947. The Lord Chancellor had said:
The English Bar is the inheritor and the trustee of the great tradition of independence. We have fought for that independence against kings, and we are ready today to fight for it against the Executive.
Those sentiments will, I am sure, be echoed by most if not all—I am not sure about the attitude of the Communist Party on matters of this description—but


by most if not all Members of this House. However, we make the point that they must not be regarded as being mere platitudes. So it is very necessary that we should examine the provisions of this Bill very carefully in the light of the views which have been expressed by these eminent members of the legal profession.
Part I of the Bill deals, as the Solicitor-General has explained, with legal aid and legal advice, and both it and Part II are based, to some extent—and I make the qualification very definitely—to some extent upon the Report of the Cameron Committee. It is our view—and I do not think that it can be disputed—that, so far as Part I is concerned, there has been a considerable and significant departure from certain of the recommendations made by the Dean of Faculty and his colleagues The changes which have been made are viewed with profound disquiet by the Dean of Faculty, and by such important persons as the Deputy Keeper of the Signet and the President of the S.S.C. Society. If hon. Members will look at paragraph 5 of the Cameron Report, Cmd. 6925, they will see that note is taken of the fact that there is no Officer of State in Scotland whose position and functions are directly comparable with those of the Lord Chancellor in England.

4.40 p.m.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Colonial Stock Act, 1948.
2. Debts Clearing Offices Act, 1948.
3. Expiring Laws Continuance Act. 1948.
4. Judges Pensions (India and Burma) Act, 1948.
5. Civil Defence Act, 1948.
6. National Service (Amendment) Act, 1948.
7. Wages Councils Act, 1948.
8. Recall of Army and Air Force Pensioners Act, 1948.
9. Prize Act. 1948.
10. Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act, 1948.

11. Stornoway Harbour Order Confirmation Act, 1948.
12. Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1948.
13. Dundee Harbour and Tay Ferries Order Confirmation Act, 1948.

Orders of the Day — LEGAL AID AND SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

4.50 p.m.

Lieut-Commander Hutchison: Before the interruption occurred, I was explaining that the Cameron Committee in its report took note of the fact that there was no officer in Scotland comparable to the Lord Chancellor in England. The Committee recommended that it would not be either appropriate or desirable to place the sole responsibility for any scheme for the reorganisation of the legal profession to provide free legal aid on the shoulders of the Lord President of the Court of Session. They said that, in their opinion, the Lord Advocate should be jointly associated with the Lord President in the supervision and the administration of the proposals which they made. I understand—and the Solicitor-General confirmed it this afternoon—that the Bill is, in the main, supposed to be based upon the principles laid down in the report of the Cameron Committee.
I would, however, call the attention of the House to the closing words of paragraph 5 where, although the signatories to the report agree that there may be an anomaly, they said:
We consider that this is an anomaly which may be accepted and one which is unlikely to cause difficulty or embarrassment in practice.
However, when we come to the Bill as drafted we find no mention in the key Clauses—that is Clauses 7, 8 and 11—of either the Lord President or the Lord Advocate; in every case the Secretary of State for Scotland is made the responsible authority for issuing regulations. Strong exception is taken to that, certainly by hon. Members on this side of the House, and I am sure by most, if not all, members of the legal profession. Sheriff Cameron himself has this to say about it in the letter which appears in "The Scotsman" of 14th December:
It may be urged that the wide powers which the Bill confers on the Secretary of


State—not, be it observed, on the Lord Advocate who discharges so many of the functions of a Minister of Justice in Scotland—will not he used; the simple answer to that is if unnecessary they should find no place in a Parliamentary enactment.
I feel very strongly that this departure from the proposals laid down in the Cameron Report is wrong in principle, in that it involves a Member of the Executive, in the shape of the Secretary of State for Scotland, making a wide variety of regulations on matters of fundamental concern to the administration of justice in Scotland.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence) pointed out a little earlier, in an interjection, Clause 11 is objected to very strongly by all the legal bodies, such as the General Council of Solicitors, the Faculty of Advocates, the Society of Writers to the Signet, and the Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Court. The very wide powers taken by the Secretary of State can be appreciated if hon. Members realise that in no fewer than eight of the 15 Clauses in Part I there are powers for the issuing of regulations. We feel that this is not a satisfactory state of affairs; we ask the Government to drop Clause 11 altogether, and to amend those other Clauses in such a way as to substitute the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Advocate for the Secretary of State for Scotland as the authorities charged with the duty of making such regulations as may be necessary.

Mr. McAllister: The hon. and gallant Member says that these regulations are fundamental to the administration of justice. I wonder if he could amplify that, and show us how they are fundamental, and how it would make any difference if they were made by the Lord Advocate instead of the Secretary of State.

Lieut-Commander Hutchison: The Secretary of State is, if I may put it this way, a political officer, a Member of the Executive, but the Lord Advocate is in rather a different position because he is a Law Officer, in the same way as the Attorney-General is in England; I should say he has judicial functions to exercise and is really, in a sense I suppose, the head of the Bar in Scotland. I am not a lawyer, and I should not like to make a precise distinction between the duties of

the Dean of Faculty, the Lord Advocate and the Lord President of the Court of Session. However, we feel, as did the Cameron Committee—and they were lawyers—that the Lord Advocate and the Lord President combined would be a more appropriate authority to issue regulations than the purely political head, the Secretary of State.

Mr. McAllister: I fully accept the distinction drawn between the Lord Advocate and the Lord President, but the hon. and gallant Member said that the administration of justice was fundamentally affected by this Clause. Surely, this is a purely machinery Clause.

Lieut-Commander Hutchison: That is, of course, so. Making rules for the administration of justice is, of necessity, a mechanical process. That is a matter the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) can perhaps argue later. I and my hon. Friends feel that this is quite definitely a question of the political head operating in a sphere which should be left to the judiciary, and to the legal head of the Government.
At this stage it is, I think, appropriate to refer briefly to the three main grievances felt by the legal profession in Scotland and by my hon. Friends in regard to this Bill. The first is that, although the Cameron Committee published their Report in May, 1946, there were no subsequent consultations or discussions as to the details of the Bill with the professional bodies in Scotland, although, as the Solicitor-General pointed out, there were apparently two informal discussions in October, a couple of months ago.
The second grievance, to which I referred a little earlier, is that insufficient time has been given to the members of the legal profession to study the Bill in all its details, and to hold meetings of their respective societies and associations before this Second Reading Debate. I took the trouble to ascertain that the Bill was actually published and available in the Vote Office on 22nd November, which would probably mean that it would be available in the Stationery Office in Edinburgh two or three days later. We are now at the 16th December, so there really has not been very much time, or indeed adequate time, for those concerned to get together in conference to consider the proposals put forward in


the Bill. For that reason we urge the Government to give us plenty of breathing space before the Committee Stage so that all interested parties will have time carefully to study the Bill and to put forward Amendments, which the Solicitor-General said he would welcome.
The third grievance is that, we feel that in some respects the Bill goes beyond the scope of the Cameron Report, and does not take sufficient regard of the long-established and proved system of legal aid which has existed in Scotland ever since the passage of the original Act of 1424, to which the Solicitor-General made reference. We think it is regrettable that the Scottish system should be rather lightly cast aside, or suppressed in favour of a somewhat hybrid scheme based on the English Rushcliffe Report. We feel that our system has passed away and been lost, owing to the fact that the Cameron Committee were limited by their remit to follow the remit given to the Rushcliffe Committee.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): Would the hon. and gallant Member explain in what respects, apart from the extension of the scheme and the consequential developments of the machinery as a result thereof, this new proposal in any way differs fundamentally from the old system of poor law assistance that we had in Scotland?

Lieut-Commander Hutchison: I understand that in the opinion of the legal profession this scheme, as proposed, closely follows the proposals laid down in the Rushcliffe Report. We think that the gradual growth of the Scottish system has been rather overshadowed in its details by the proposals in the Bill. I put that forward as the information which has been given to me. I must admit that when we come down to points of detail I am at a disadvantage in arguing with the learned Lord Advocate.

The Lord Advocate: I should explain that, naturally, I did not expect the hon. and gallant Member to be conversant with the details of a matter which is largely technical. I wondered whether perhaps the people who had put forward this complaint, had given him a sufficient briefing to enable him to explain it to me, because I am interested in any such points.

Lieut-Commander Hutchison: I would say this, that they ate technical rather than general points.
The provisions of Part II are, on the whole, very much more acceptable, I think, to the members of the legal profession in Scotland than are those of Part I. I am informed, nevertheless, that in many quarters they are not greeted with any great enthusiasm. Some lawyers dislike the idea of the guarantee fund, which they feel may be regarded as rather a slur on an honourable profession. On the other hand, as a layman, one can see it has undoubted virtues from the point of view of the general public.

Mr. Willis: Surely this is the legal profession's own part of the Bill?

Lieut-Commander Hutchison: I merely say that some sections feel it is rather a slur—this idea that they have to be insured against the black sheep in the flock.

The Lord Advocate: It is the public that are being insured.

Lieut-Commander Hutchison: As I have said, it has its virtues from the public point of view. I do not propose to say anything more on the details because they can be discussed during the Committee stage. I agree that it is to a large extent an agreed part of the Bill.
As regards the provisions of Part I of the Bill, perhaps I may say a word about Clause 1. Fears have been expressed, both by advocates and solicitors, that in Subsection (6) the deciding authority as to whether or not legal aid shall be given is to be the Secretary of State, but I understand from the Solicitor-General that it will be the local committee, which clears up a point about which there was uneasiness. With regard to Clause 2, my attention has been drawn to the fact that there is some vagueness as to the actual expenses that may be incurred by a litigant. It is very desirable that anyone who is embarking on the tortuous course of legal proceedings should know before he sets forth how much he is likely to be involved in by way of payments and expenses. I know the intention is that legal aid shall be free, or at very modest cost, but provision is made for contributions to the Legal Aid Fund and in the case of unsuccessful actions for payment of expenses. I do


not claim to be a mathematical genius, but it may be that a person will find himself liable for a considerable payment in respect of the provisions of Subsection (3,c ande). This is a matter we shall require to look at with some care when we come to the Committee stage.
Clause 5 has also given rise, so I am advised, to considerable concern in legal circles. Put briefly, these are some of the doubts and criticisms. First, there is some uncertainty as to who is to draw up the panels of solicitors and advocates referred to in Subsection (1). Clearly, this is a matter which ought to be dealt with by the Law Society and by the Faculty of Advocates, but it appears, from the Bill as drafted, that this function can be exercised by the Secretary of State under the terms of Clause 11. No doubt the Lord Advocate will be able to deal with that in his reply, because apprehension has been expressed on this point.
As regards Clause 5 (2), which deals with matters of discipline, it is the view of the legal profession, and of Members on this side of the House, that all questions concerning standards of professional conduct shall be dealt with by the respective legal bodies, that is the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society. The Solicitor-General referred, in passing, to this point in his reference to a right of appeal to the courts, but I do not think he made it clear whether or not the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates were to have charge of disciplinary matters.

The Solicitor-General: If I did not make that clear, I intended to do so.

Lieut-Commander Hutchison: I shall be interested to know—it is rather a technical matter—just how this Clause is harmonised with Section 24 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1933, which establishes the Discipline Committee whose members are nominated by the Lord President of Court of Sessions from a panel recommended by the General Council. I suppose the intention is that the Discipline Committee will continue to function under this Bill, but perhaps the Lord Advocate can make some reference to that in his reply.
The third point that arises in regard to Clause 5 is contained in Subsection (5), with which I might link the Third Schedule. This deals with the question

of payment of fees to counsel and solicitors. I am told, and I have no reason to doubt it, that many members of the Faculty of Advocates, and doubtless many law agents, are quite willing to continue to perform the traditional social duty that has been imposed upon them of representing persons in poor circumstances without any payment, but that as that system is now being departed from in this Bill they feel—and I agree with them—that all members of the legal profession should be paid the full and: proper fees, or, to use an industrial analogy, should receive the trade union rates for the job. Members of the legal profession do not understand why the Government have decided to cut the fees to the rate of 85 per cent. of the amount allowed on taxation. If a law agent is undertaking the duty of representing a person, they claim that he ought to be paid the full and proper rate for so doing, and I hope that the Lord Advocate makes due reference to that in his reply. As regards Clause 6, there are certain obscurities; indeed, one eminent counsel of my acquaintance has briefly described it as "fantastic." There does not seem to be any machinery by which a solicitor, under the terms of Subsection (7, a) can find out whether or not a client is able to pay the 2s. 6d. fee for advice.

Mr. Willis: Surely the hon. and gallant Member knows that this is already in practice and has been for many years.

Lieut-Commander Hutchison: But there is no reason for re-embodying it in this Bill unless it can be implemented; it is no use putting it in unless it can be done.

Mr. William Ross: Surely, if it has been going on for many years it can be done.

Lieut-Commander Hutchison: It must be a matter of opinion as to whether it is functioning well, upon which I can express no opinion based on experience. I hope the Lord Advocate will say why it is put in, because it seems of rather doubtful value. On the question of oral advice, it is not clear whether the advice is to be given by a solicitor on the panel, or if it is the intention that this function shall be exercised only by solicitors on the staff of a legal aid centre, organised perhaps somewhat like the Edinburgh Legal Dispensary, only operating on a full-time and paid basis.
Finally, there are some general points upon which I hope the Lord Advocate will comment. I should like an explanation of the meaning of Clause 14. I am told, and here again unfortunately I cannot speak from personal knowledge as a lawyer, that the expression, "This Part of this Act shall bind the Crown," is an unusual one. It sounds satisfactory as far as it goes, but I do not know what it means. Secondly, the provisions of Clause 15 (4) and of Clause 26 (2) are, I think, without precedent; at least I have never heard of any single statute being divided into two parts and each part being cited as a separate Act, on its own. I should have thought the proper course would be to have two Bills, one dealing with legal aid and the other with the establishment of the Law Society of Scotland and the other appropriate administrative matters. It is rather a pity that the Government did not follow that course. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will explain why this procedure, which seems to me unusual, has been adopted.
The real test of the Bill is however whether it will give the public in Scotland an effective and cheap legal service and will, at the same time, preserve the independence of the legal profession. I hope it will, but I must admit to being uncomfortable about some of the provisions of the Bill especially in Part 1. My views are reinforced by no less a person than the Lord President of the Court of Session, who, in an address to the Glasgow Juridical Society on 12th March this year, drew attention to the dangers which might accrue to the citizens of our country if the solicitors and advocates in Scotland were to become in any way virtual servants of a Government Department. I would like to quote one paragraph from the report of the speech by Lord Cooper, which appeared in the "Glasgow Herald" of 13th March, 1948. He was discussing proposals which might be incorporated in a parliamentary Bill, and he said:
It might mean that a large number of solicitors and advocates in Scotland would become virtual servants of a Ministry of Justice, drawing their remuneration from a Government department, and inevitably, taking certain instructions from that department.

He also said:
If the proposals were carried into effect as outlined in the Rushcliffe and Cameron Reports, it seemed that the legal profession would have reached at one stride a position more advanced than was reached by the medical profession when the first National Health Insurance Act was passed. Events had shown that Act to be the thin end of a very large wedge. He urged lawyers to give serious consideration now to the implications of its legal counterpart.
I would like to think that the dangers to which the Lord President referred, and which I also have endeavoured to indicate, do not exist in this Measure but, having regard to the very extensive powers taken by the Secretary of State to issue regulations, I must say that my mind is by no means easy in this respect. Sheriff Cameron has said just the same thing in his letter which I mentioned previously. He said:
There are, however, grave apprehensions that something more is at stake than the mere provision of a system of legal aid—independence of action and freedom of judgment—and the haste with which this Measure is being hurried through Parliament does nothing to allay these apprehensions. I wish also to make it clear that the provisions of this Bill are in certain important particulars at variance with the recommendations of the Committee over whom I had the honour to preside.
One can say that our fears and anxieties are amply backed up by those opinions.
For that reason, although we do not seek to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, we shall certainly put forward substantial Amendments at a later stage to safeguard the interests of private individuals, in the hope that these Amendments will be accepted by the Government. Failing such improvements during the Committee stage and later stages we shall reserve our right to divide the House on the Third Reading of the Bill.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I join with the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut-Commander Hutchison) in congratulating my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland, upon his speech in opening the Debate. Listening to the hon. and gallant Member, it occurred to me that, unlike the English Debate yesterday, the present Debate is certainly not a lawyer's holiday. Apart from the Law Officers, we have no lawyers in the House to discuss the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member has certainly


turned himself into an excellent advocate on behalf of the lawyers and of the legal profession. I only wish that he had devoted the attention to the needs of the poor litigants that he devoted to preserving the privileges of the legal profession.
There is another and more important aspect of the Bill, concerning the person who needs legal aid. The hon. and gallant Member told us, as we have learned from what has appeared in the Scottish Press during the last few days, that the Bill departed from the proposals of the Cameron Committee's Report. Later on I shall ask him if he will join with me in this matter. First, however, I would point out that hon. Members opposite had the opportunity before the war of doing something along these lines in the manner that they would have wished. They had an excellent report, the Morton report, upon which to base a Bill to give legal aid to poor people, but hon. Members opposite, with their characteristic neglect of the needs of the poor people, failed to do that. I am therefore rather surprised that they come along at this stage to criticise our efforts.
The terms of reference of the Cameron Committee were certainly too limited. We have a cause of complaint because the Committee to consider the Bill for Scotland was limited to the consideration of a report framed on an examination of the working of legal aid for the poor in England. Those limitations were exceedingly unfortunate because they precluded the Cameron Committee from examining any alternative proposals. In fact, one member of the Cameron Committee found himself completely unable to sign the report at all because he did not agree with the method proposed in the Rushcliffe Committee's Report for dealing with legal aid for the poor. Had we been able to consider other proposals we might have done much better than we have done in this Bill.
The Bill is based upon a system that has been built up in Scotland since 1424. We have read a lot about that recently in the Press. We have heard a lot about the excellent service which is being rendered by the legal profession in providing assistance for the poor. It has been called "ancient and honourable," I have no quarrel with that; I think every credit should be given to the legal

profession for what they have done to try to meet the needs of the poor. But let us look at this system from the point of view of the poor person who desires assistance. I would like to read extracts from a letter from a solicitor who has had practical experience of the operation of the present system. He says:
It is doing great work, but it is hopelessly inadequate…It smacks too much of poor people being used once again as guinea pigs…the eight lawyers who are appointed each year…are usually young, newly qualified, with not a great deal of experience. The six advocates…who are appointed are…usually newly called, young, untried men.
The litigant is not getting the best possible advice; he is getting the advice of some one who has little experience.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: That may be true of the cities, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not true of the county boroughs.

Mr. Willis: I know it is true in the City of Edinburgh. This is what a solicitor says, and from my personal experience in Edinburgh I can confirm it. The solicitor who is busy—and if he is competent he will be busy—and who has been long established, will not want to be placed on the Poor's Roll. It is also the case with the advocate. This solicitor then refers to the low income limit governing the grant of legal aid. He ends by saying:
It is degrading for these people; in my experience the majority are decent hard-working folk, to be labelled as poor and to be forced to trudge from the Dispensary to Register House to lawyer's office, to a J.P. back to a lawyer's office, and so on and to be kept in suspense all the time.
That is a comment on the present system, and it contains a considerable element of truth.
I wish to examine the Bill from these points of view: To what extent does it remove the criticisms in that letter? To what extent does it get rid of the low income limit? To what extent does it remove the feeling of people that the are being used as guinea pigs for the young and inexperienced? To what extent does it remove the stigma of poverty? To what extent does it speed up procedure? These are good tests to apply to the Bill. The income limit has been fixed at £420, after certain deductions have been made.
I do not know how this figure was arrived at, but let us see how it works


out in practice. A person is liable to be charged up to half his disposable income, after £156 has been deducted. Suppose his disposable income is £300. He is still liable to pay £72, that is, 30s. a week—a considerable sum. I should have thought that that went a long way towards doing what the Cameron Committee were afraid might happen if we adopted the Rushcliffe Committee's Report, namely, to bear hardly on that section of the community which, they felt, stood most in need of legal aid and assistance—persons with small businesses or moderate wages or salaries. I am not convinced that the Bill goes far enough towards getting rid of the low income limit.
The Bill goes against the recommendations of the Cameron Committee—and this is where I hope the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh will join me—in making the applicant go through a form of means test. The applicant must go to the Assistance Board for his income to be assessed. That is not what the Cameron Committee recommended. Will the hon. and gallant Member join me in wanting to see the abolition of this means test? The Cameron Committee reported:
We therefore recommend that it should be open to a litigant to apply for legal aid at any stage of a cause, and that he should have the right to assist to enable that application to be made. We further recommend that a Certificate of Means, setting out fully the requisite information as to capital and income, should be furnished by way of Statutory Declaration, to be made before any Solicitor.
The Report then goes on to show how any declaration can be fenced around. The Cameron Committee were against the means test, which is a most undesirable element in this Bill.
Now for my second point. I cannot see any reference in the Bill ensuring experience in those operating the system. In Clause 5, dealing with solicitors and counsel, there is no guarantee that the applicant seeking legal aid will be in any different position from that in which he was before the Bill was introduced. Why is it that people in the lower income groups must always be given second best? That is a principle which we on this side of the House should violently oppose on every occasion. Too long have the poor been given second best: it is time they were given the best.
With reference to the stigma of poverty that is attached to the scheme, there is no doubt about the real feeling of those who have to apply for assistance. By virtue of the fact that we introduce a means test, and make the applicant go to the Assistance Board, we aggravate that feeling. I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend to remove the word "poor" from the system proposed to be set up under this Bill. Further, the Bill does not speed up procedure. A person requiring assistance goes to the local member of the panel, and from there to the local committee. He has to have his case prepared. Then he goes to the Assistance Board, and then again to a solicitor. This is just as wearisome as the procedure of which complaint was made in the letter I have read to the House. We not only want the law to give us justice, but we want it to be speedy and I hope my right hon. Friend will look into that matter.
With regard to legal aid, I consider it will become increasingly important, because the main bulk of legal work is of a consultative character—the seeking of advice. It is non-litigious; it does not require to go into the courts, and in view of the great mass of legislation which goes through this House, that is bound to become increasingly so. No ordinary person for instance, understands the various Rent Restriction Acts for one thing. No ordinary person who has got a house at the present time understands his position under the Town and Country Planning Act. Therefore, it seems to me that the necessity for legal advice becomes increasingly important.
This Bill, of course, is on rather a more permanent footing than the present system, which it slightly extends. I cannot help feeling that if the Cameron Committee had been allowed to take evidence regarding the working of the system in Scandinavia, for instance, they might have thought of something better for this Bill. I welcome the fact that in this part of the Bill the person makes a declaration of income and does not have to go to the National Assistance Board. Why, if it is satisfactory for a person requiring legal advice simply to make a statutory declaration rather than go to the National Assistance Board in this case, should it not also be applicable in the case which requires legal aid in the courts?
Examining this Bill with regard to the points I have mentioned, it seems to me that it goes a considerable way to make legal aid more readily available to the lower income groups, but it fails in my opinion to remove many of the undesirable features of the present system. I am confident that my right hon. Friend will certainly do all he can to assist in removing these undesirable features, but he cannot remove the means test unless we amend the Bill in Committee. So whilst I welcome this Bill as far as it goes, I am confident that in the course of time people will want something better. This Bill does not give them all that they will want. In time when they demand something better I trust that we shall examine the question from the point of view of the litigant, and that when the evidence concerning the matter is taken it will not be confined, as in the case of the Cameron Committee, purely to legal bodies.
After all, the legal profession is an institution that has grown up in society to perform certain tasks for society, and society has not got to be moulded in accordance with the wishes of the legal profession. I hope, therefore, that we shall approach it from the point of view of the litigant—the ordinary man in the street who is usually half frightened of the law, very resentful of inquiry into his private affairs, and anxious to retain his self-respect. If we do that I am confident that we can get a much better Bill than the Bill which is at present before us.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. Spence: I approach this Bill not from the angle of the lawyer but from the standpoint of someone who is anxious to see this scheme become a real success. On both sides of the House, we are agreed on the merits of its general terms, but I have a feeling that either through stupidity or arrogance, the Government have got off to a very bad start. It is surely of prime importance that complete understanding and confidence should prevail between the Law Officers of the Crown and the legal profession as to the general outline of the Bill. It is upon the lawyers and the work that they do that the success of the Bill depends. That is why it was rather puzzling and disconcerting to hear, on the one hand, the Solicitor-General tell us there had been

consultations with the different branches of the legal profession, and, on the other, to read in the Scottish Press in the last few days of the misgivings that have been aroused and, indeed, in the case of Mr. Cameron, the actual paragraph in his letter where he says that no consultation of a general nature took place and, further, that no request was made for representations to be made by his society to the Secretary of State's office. It is quite clear that there is some divergence.
Listening to the Solicitor-General we had the impression that there had been consultation. We found out how this came about when I put my question to the Solicitor-General during his speech, which he was good enough to answer, as to whether Clause 11 was contained in the outline of the Bill which was shown to the legal profession. That is where the trouble lies. The Bill without that Clause is like hell without the Prince of Darkness. With Clause 11, it is dynamite, or might be, because it gives the Secretary of State enormous powers if he likes to take them.
It is because of that, that alarm has been created in the minds of the legal profession in Scotland. The Solicitor-General indicated that between now and the Committee stage he would have consultations with the various bodies concerned. If he does, I hope there will be a broad measure of agreement on Amendments in the Committee stage to improve the Bill. I believe that he would be taking the right action in consulting the law societies, to overcome the suspicion and the difficulty arising out of the feeling that the integrity of the law is being encroached on by the Government. I beg the Secretary of State to take such action, so that the Bill will be a really good one and will bring the benefit we all seek, to the people of Scotland.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: In proffering a welcome to the Bill, I largely subscribe to the speech which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis), but we have to remember that the Bill before us is largely of an experimental nature and because of that, we have to be cautious in any initial approaches, we make towards the solution of the problems which my hon. Friend has so ably outlined. We have here an exploratory


Measure which is also capable of expansion. I am certain that under the present Government, the services which are provided in the Bill will, in due course, as the result of the knowledge which we gain, be expanded to include those various aspects with which my hon. Friend dealt.
A good deal has been made of Clause 11. I, too, have criticisms, but that Clause is not among them. If we are to accept the changes proposed by the Opposition, there would result a subtraction from the authority of the Secretary of State and therefore a subtraction from the authority of Parliament. There is nothing which the Secretary of State can do in the making of statutory instruments without the authority of this House, and that authority must be supreme. In seeking to transfer any of the authority of Parliament to any other body outside Parliament, the Opposition are attacking the authority of Parliament itself.
A criticism which I do make relates to Clause 4 (4) which deals with savings. I want my right hon. Friend to realise that the savings of a great many people reside largely in the Co-operative societies. Clause 4 says:
Except in so far as the regulations otherwise provide, any resources of a person's wife or husband shall be treated for the purposes of this section as that person's resources.
I realise that Co-operative societies place a limit on individual savings, but it would seem that under this Clause the savings of the wife and those of the husband which are held separately within a society, will be aggregated for the purposes of the Bill. The result would be that we should be doing something completely wrong because savings in a Cooperative society are largely savings made as a result of purchases of essential commodities. From that point of view, the limit of £500 is far too low, and it ought to be raised immediately. I recognise that in any event that is something which we can look forward to in the future, and I hope that the future will not be a remote one.

Commander Galbraith: I am very interested in that argument, but will not the hon. Gentleman extend it to all savings? Where-ever they are, savings are surely one and the same thing?

Mr. Rankin: Obviously. If the limit is raised from £500 to, say, £1,000, it must naturally include savings other than those in the Co-operative societies.

Mr. McAllister: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the raising of the limit would be enough? Is not his point of view that if action is taken by the husband, the wife's savings should be disregarded, and if it is taken by the wife, the husband's should be disregarded?

Mr. Rankin: I am very glad to have that interruption. The savings of husband and wife held separately in a society, ought not to be aggregated to the total sum indicated in the Clause, and then utilised in any legal action affecting the husband or wife separately.
Here is a rather difficult point which was raised in a letter in the "Glasgow Herald" of yesterday's date. The writer points out that, in practice, in certain cases the savings Clause would mean that a person getting £15 a week might be included in the provisions of the Clause and a person getting £5 a week might not come under it, on the ground that the person with £15 a week might live up to his income completely and have no savings, whereas a person with £5 a week might save a great deal. There is substance in the point, but we must have limits somewhere, and I do not think the objection is a general one. We have no right to assume that an individual getting £15 a week spends more than a person getting £5 a week. I notice that in certain cases the solicitor will give oral advice. I know that solicitors do give oral advice, but in the interests of the person who is seeking the advice, that oral advice ought to be confirmed in writing. Difficulties which might arise in certain cases could easily be overcome if the advice had to be confirmed in writing.
I welcome the Bill. I regard it as largely experimental and an experiment which can be expanded as we gain knowledge. Dealing with the benefits, the Solicitor-General said it was difficult to estimate the number who would be affected by this scheme. I hope that before the Debate concludes an attempt will be made to give us a rough approximation of the number, because they are important. The number for the English scheme was given. It was stated that


something like 12 million people in England—whether that was the working population or not, I do not know—would benefit. I hope we shall be able to get a rough idea of the number in Scotland, because it is important that we should be able to say what number, approximately, will be benefited by this Bill.

Major Guy Lloyd: I do not see why it is of such importance to the hon. Member and to others to be able to say how many are involved. Is it because of the General Election that he wants to be able to say it?

Mr. Rankin: No. We approach the problem a little more honestly than the hon. and gallant Member for Eastern Renfrew (Major Lloyd). It is in our own interest and in the interest of the people on whose behalf we are passing this Measure, that we should have an idea of the numbers who will be benefited. We are not thinking merely of the lawyers but of the ordinary people who will come under the scope of the Bill. I do not think the legal profession have much to grumble about so far as the Bill is concerned. I think we should recognise that they have set their professional brethren on the medical side an example that the doctors might well have shown in cooperating with the Government in the application of the National Health Services Act.
It is not true to say that no consultations have been held in the framing of this Measure. I am assured that such consultations were held. We can well understand why a House in which the legal profession are represented in larger numbers than any other section of the community, is a House that will not do much harm to their interests. I think we should notice, however, that while the lawyers will gain so far as the cases of poor persons are concerned, there will be a loss in the income they now get from the wealthier section of the community. Against that, however, we have to set the fact that under the Bill they will have far more clients than they ever had before, so that what they lose on the swings they will gain on the roundabouts.

Mr. Willis: Would my hon. Friend develop the point which has been made several times in the Press and now by himself, that because the lawyer is to

receive payment from another source than the client, he will lose money as a result?

Mr. Rankin: No, I am only pointing out—

Mr. Willis: But my hon. Friend said that there will be a loss.

Mr. Rankin: I have been speaking longer than I intended and so I will not develop the point which my hon. Friend incites me to develop. All I am pointing out is that where, formerly, the lawyer had no income as regards many of the cases of poor persons, now he is assured of an income and, because of the scope of the Bill, he will now get from a certain section of the community a smaller income than formerly because they will come under the Bill. However, that has to be related to the fact that he will have more clients. So I think that the interests of the legal profession are well served on the whole by the Bill, and I hope that as the scheme develops, the ordinary person will be as well served as the lawyer.

5.55 p.m.

Major Guy Lloyd: I begin straightaway by telling the Government and hon. Members opposite, if they are not yet aware of it, that certain aspects of this Bill are viewed with grave suspicion by many people in Scotland, not by any means confined to the legal profession. I have had a considerable amount of correspondence on this subject. Many people are extremely indignant at the way the Bill has been rushed upon us, with no real opportunity either to consider it ourselves in all its important, tricky, legal aspects which the average hon. Member is not well qualified to examine rapidly, and also to take consultation with those who are qualified to advise us on the effects of this Bill and its weaknesses.
I do not wonder that the Bill has excited a certain amount of misgiving and mistrust, because the longer this Government stays in, the more distrust and misgiving the people of Scotland have towards it. Every time the Government brings forward a Bill, people are beginning to inquire into the underlying motive, and whether or not the Bill really means what it pretends to mean. I had a feeling—and others have written to me in the same strain—that all this stuff about legal aid


for the poor was to some extent laid on with a brush, in order to camouflage at least one of the major points behind the Bill, and that is the Socialist theory of getting hold of the legal profession, if it possibly can, and bringing it under some measure of control.
I have had several people warn me that that would probably be the case, and I had a most interesting conversation the other day with someone who had been reading what I suppose is the Socialist bible on this subject, the pamphlet issued by the Haldane Society. I understand that this society, under that respectable title, confines its membership entirely to Socialist lawyers and members of the legal profession who hold these strange theories of Socialism; that it is a closed shop to anybody else, and that in any case, no other kind of person would want to join it.
I understand that this pamphlet—which I have not read but which I have had at second-hand—makes the point again and again throughout its discourses, that if Socialism is to succeed it must control the legal profession, and that every means—I underline those two words—must be taken to get control of the legal profession. However, it obviously cannot be done at once; the public must not be, alarmed; the thing must be done with every form of subtlety—a Bill must be rushed through quickly, just before the Christmas Recess.

Mr. William Ross: Does it say that in the pamphlet which the hon. and gallant Member is quoting?

Major Lloyd: I am telling hon. Members the gist of what the pamphlet says but, as I have stated, I have not read it and neither has the hon. Gentleman.

An Hon. Member: That is obvious.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): Obviously one can develop all kinds of fears about things. Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain how it is that none of these fears has reached the hon. Gentlemen on his own side of the House, who congratulated the Government on bringing in a somewhat similar Bill yesterday for England and Wales; and how all the legal profession in England and Wales seem to be unaware of the sinister, dark business which

the hon. and gallant Gentleman has suddenly conjured up?

Major Lloyd: I do not represent a seat in England or Wales; I represent a seat in Scotland. I am talking about Scotland and the people who have been telling me these things in Scotland, and I say that this pamphlet, which is an authoritative pamphlet issued exclusively by Socialist lawyers—

Mr. Woodburn: Is not this pamphlet written by Socialist lawyers—if they are Socialist lawyers—in England, and why, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman is talking about Scotland, does he quote something which emanates from England?

Major Lloyd: Because Socialism now governs Scotland as well as England. That is the whole point. It is the theory of Socialism which I am discussing. This pamphlet says that because Socialists and a Socialist Government which, unfortunately, controls Scotland as well as England—I wish it did not—

Mr. Ross: How can the hon. and gallant Gentleman state definitely what is contained in the pamphlet when, as he admits, he has not read it? Would he please look at it before he makes such sweeping statements?

Major Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is quibbling. I will repeat what I have already said. The pamphlet is now out of print. I presume all its copies were exhausted, or, perhaps, that Socialists wanted to conceal it before they issued the Bill. Therefore, no one can read it now. I have a friend, however, who read it not more than three days ago and has told me what is in it. I am doing my best to repeat the gist of it. Under such circumstances no one can expect me to give verbatim quotations.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. and gallant Member is doing very well.

Mr. McAllister: The hon. and gallant Member has made very wild allegations about a pamphlet, which he admits he has not read, and he has reflected very seriously, I think on an important body of legal opinion outside this House which has no immediate opportunity of replying. Would it be in Order for me to present the hon. and gallant Gentleman with a copy of the Haldane Society's


statement in order that he may find some slight evidence for the monstrous nonsense he has just been talking?

Major Lloyd: The hon. Member has not got the Haldane Society's pamphlet to which I am referring. If he had, I should be glad to have it. It is not a sheet of paper like that which the hon. Member is holding. It is a pamphlet which was issued some time ago.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. and gallant Gentleman may be entitled to refer in this Debate to the document which he has mentioned if it is relevant but he is not entitled to go into details which, as I gather, he is not in a position immediately to substantiate.

Major Lloyd: I welcome your words, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was not going to spend more than a moment or two on this matter but one hon. Gentleman opposite after another was irritated and made me go on.
In Scotland many people, not confined to the legal profession, profoundly distrust the major motive behind the Bill. They think that under the excuse, with which we all sympathise, of more generous legal aid to poor people an attempt is deliberately being made—the thin end of the wedge—to get some control of the legal profession in Scotland. Having read the Bill, I believe that those people are right in their belief and that one of the underlying motives of the Bill is to get hold of the legal profession in Scotland, and eventually to control it as much as possible.
I want to take up a point with which other hon. Members have dealt. It is quite obvious from complaints made by very responsible people in the legal profession in Scotland, and in responsible leading articles in the Press, that they and a great many others, are entirely dissatisfied with the prior consultations which took place. That is what is said by extremely responsible individuals and bodies of opinion. Doubtless, some kind of consultation did take place. I am informed that at one consultation at which the Lord Advocate was present, when there was not a very good attendance, the Lord Advocate said that he hoped no publicity whatever would be given to the consultations.

The Lord Advocate: Would the hon. and gallant Member kindly inform the

House who was the author of that remark in order that I may have the opportunity of meeting it, and, if necessary, of refuting it?

Major Lloyd: The author of that remark was a member of the legal profession, a solicitor—[An HON. MEMBER: "Who?"]—who told me he had been told by someone who was present—[Interruption.] If the Lord Advocate will say outright that he made no such remark, I will immediately withdraw my remark. There were plenty of people present who heard him. If he did not make that kind of remark let him say so now, so that I may withdraw it. Obviously, then, the Lord Advocate is not prepared to withdraw it, even though my information, of course, came secondhand because I could not be there myself. As, apparently, he is not prepared to contradict me, I leave it in HANSARD that I have been informed that he said he hoped there would be no publicity as a result of those consultations and I have said that if he wished to contradict me there would be others who could say whether he was right or wrong.

The Lord Advocate: Let me explain that at the meeting referred to by the hon. and gallant Member I said that these meetings had to be treated in a confidential manner at that stage, because it was prior to the publication of the Bill, but that confidentiality should extend to and not beyond the members of the society or their council, who would require to be consulted in connection with the proposals.

Major Lloyd: In other words, what I said was perfectly true, that the Lord Advocate did, in fact, demand that there should be no publicity, and, only because there was no publicity, I quite understand the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman has given. He may have been reasonable in making that request, but people in Scotland who are concerned with this matter have had no real opportunity to consider it at all because the Bill has been rushed. Since their lips were sealed as a result of that request of the Lord Advocate before the Bill was published, and the Bill has been rushed along, there has been practically no opportunity at all for discussion or consultation. That is the major protest which is coming to me and to other hon. Members from Scotland.
The Bill is most unhappy in so far as it deliberately attempts to impose a measure of control on the profession through the Secretary of State for Scotland. That vitiates to a very large extent that part of the Bill which we welcome so much in all parts of the House, the provision of more facilities for legal aid to the poorer sections of the community. As the representative of a constituency, I am, inevitably, the mouthpiece of other people. I am informed that a strong element among solicitors in Scotland believes that some 85 per cent. of the clients of the average solicitors' firms in Scotland will come under the auspices of the Bill. If that is so, it will in practice almost compel 85 per cent. of the solicitors to register under the scheme and, therefore, come under the control of the Secretary of State, a Government department, and all the rest. This is very important, because so much emphasis has been laid on the voluntary aspect. If it were anticipated that only a comparatively small section of the legal profession would become involved, no one would have objected.

Mr. Rankin: When I was addressing the House, the hon. and gallant Member seemed to underestimate the importance of numbers. Now he is emphasising them. Why?

Major Lloyd: That is not a very important point.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. and gallant Member is making it important.

Major Lloyd: I am not very much impressed with it. After that interruption, I will proceed to the point I was trying to make, that this idea, will in fact bring in, willy-nilly, a very large proportion of the solicitors of Scotland. If the figure of 85 per cent. which has been given to me is a correct estimate, then it is most unfortunate that so many solicitors will be virtually compelled to belong to the scheme. It means that a very large proportion of the solicitors and the legal profession in Scotland will come under the control of the State. That, I say again, is one of the underlying motives of the Bill. One of the underlying principles of Socialism is to control the legal profession. Socialism has already got hold of the medical profession, and the legal profession will be

controlled more and more as Socialism develops. This is the beginning, the thin end of the wedge, the hand of the State getting a grip on the collar of the legal profession—and a far bigger grip than even the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State for Scotland may have imagined, because the Bill undoubtedly affects a large number of solicitors in Scotland.
I want to touch on another point which is causing great indignation among the public and which has nothing to do with the legal profession at all. It is the fact that the public must undergo a means test by the Assistance Board. I think a means test is a sound and practical thing, and hon. Members opposite only continue to oppose it for political reasons, but why should it be done through the Assistance Board? That will be greatly resented. If I did not misunderstand the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis), I thought he also made that point, and if so, I entirely agree with him. Many people all over Scotland will be very indignant when they have to give all their particulars and, as they consider, lower their pride and demean themselves by getting a sort of certificate from the Assistance Board. A great many middle-class people in my constituency will resent it intensely, and on their behalf, I protest strongly against it. I hope the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate will seriously consider eliminating that factor as the Bill goes through the Committee stage.
I want to make it perfectly plain that there are many people in Scotland who are thoroughly suspicious of this Bill. Why should counsel who are employed under the Bill be paid direct by the State and not through solicitors? So far as I know, this is the first time that solicitors do not pay counsel for free or any other legal aid. Counsel in Scotland will receive direct financial grants from the State. If that is not getting as near to the beginning of a salary as could be, I do not know what is. The whole thing smells of an attempt on the part of Socialism to begin to get a grip upon the legal profession. I believe that had we longer time to consult and had we more information in time from those in Scotland who are now beginning to worry, we might have had to move a reasoned Amendment against the Bill, however much we may approve of the general principle of extending legal


aid. But because the Government have rushed it and because there has been no adequate consultation, we have not had sufficient opportunity so to do.
I hope we shall oppose this Bill very strongly in Committee, and especially those aspects of it which seem to get a grip on the control of one of the very few free professions left. Socialism, which wants to control in large measure the means of production and distribution, now wants to get hold of the free professions. It has already got the doctors and the dentists. Now it is after the lawyers. I protest on behalf of many people who believe this Bill is the thin end of the wedge.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: Although I am very glad to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am sorry that I have to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Eastern Renfrew (Major Lloyd). Although I am quite sure he believes sincerely in the arguments which he has put forward, I can hardly accept them with any degree of seriousness. His argument was one of great sensationalism, which I believe is disappearing from our political discussions today, and I do not think there is any part of the House where that sort of thing will make any impression. Although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) that the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) tended to stress the point of view of the legal profession as against the point of view of the public, I must say that I much prefer his tone and method of stating his view to the much more sensational and inaccurate method adopted by the hon. and gallant Member for Eastern Renfrew.
I felt, too, that my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh hit the nail on the head once or twice in one of two of his comments on the Bill. It seems to me that there remains in the Bill a very serious possibility of the wage earner who receives £5, £6 or £7 a week, being very severely hit by the contributions which he might have to make under the Bill. Perhaps that situation will be clarified at a later stage. I felt also that we should have some indication that the fear that the assistance, advice and representation of people under this Bill would

fall to the lot of inexperienced solicitors and advocates is groundless. I think there is possibly still some ground for that fear, and naturally we do not want that sort of thing. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart) was correct when he pointed out an exception in that respect, but certainly my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh made a sound point in relation to the cities.
I should like to draw attention to the part of the Bill which, while it is the least important of the two main parts, still deserves a certain amount of consideration and comment. The Bill has two main purposes; one is to extend a scheme of legal aid, and the other to bring the solicitors' profession in Scotland into one united organization—the Law Society of Scotland. The Bill is called the Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Bill, but I think it might more appropriately be called the Solicitors and Legal Aid Bill, because the organisation of the solicitors into one body is evidently a preliminary step towards the organisation of legal aid.
The House should note that this step of bringing the solicitors in Scotland into one body, which has been previously discussed on many occasions, has been brought about through the accepting by the solicitors of a public responsibility. The united profession starts its career as such under the best sort of auspices. The occasion for the uniting of this profession has been the acceptance of a very important public duty; and, speaking from outside the profession, one rather hopes that that attitude will develop and grow in the Scottish legal profession, the junior branch of which is just about to be united into one organisation.
Apart altogether from those subjects dealt with in the first part of the Bill, the organisation of the profession into one whole, which is contemplated in the second part of the Bill, can lead to a very great deal of good in Scottish life in general, if the profession is so willing. Both sections of the legal profession in Scotland in the past have done a great deal for scholarship and public life in Scotland, but there are a number of things seriously lacking in Scottish legal life and, therefore, in one of the main elements of Scottish life. I have felt for a considerable time that in a country which prides itself on having its own separate


and distinct legal system, it is unfortunate that the legal schools in our four universities are all simply professional schools. There is not one of them which could be described as a school of jurisprudence of anything like the standing of the great English or American or Continental schools.
One cannot attend a Scottish University and have much of a chance—or indeed any chance at all—of finding the greatest and most fundamental legal topics dealt with in a liberal, as distinct from a professional, manner. I use the term "professional" in no sense of suggesting that it implies something small, but there is an important ethical and philosophical content in a legal system which it does not seem to me has ever been brought out in our Scottish law schools. I understand that in the whole history of the Scottish legal system there has never been a substantive work on Scottish jurisprudence. That is the kind of consideration which I have in mind when I welcome the unification of the solicitors' branch of the profession. I feel that if in subsequent years they follow the lead which they themselves are now giving, they can do a great deal to deepen our lives in one particular respect, that is, in respect of their own field of practice. I also feel that that will be of increasing importance to the ordinary person in Scotland.
That leads me to what I have to say about the first part of the Bill—the system of legal aid itself. I hope that this system of legal aid will be carried out in a spirit which will make for a growing and increased confidence among the people of Scotland in their own legal system. We certainly have a great deal of confidence in the courts of the land, but, as has been suggested already from one or two quarters, there tends to be a good deal of fear on the part of the ordinary wage earner of some things connected with the law. He does not understand why lawyers wear wigs and gowns, and he does not always like it. He does not understand why certain procedures are followed and is sometimes inclined to be suspicious that they represent a system which is run for the benefit of the people who run it. That is the kind of thing I mean.
I take the point of view that the business of a lawyer is not to be clever and

smart, and to deal with technicalities and legal quiddities, but that the business of a lawyer is essentially the noble business of administering justice. I should like to feel that in the development of this legal aid system the legal profession was going to take the attitude of trying to use the closer connection which it will have with the Scottish people for the purpose of bringing its clients to a closer understanding not so much of the details of the law as of the nature and value of the law.
I say that because I feel that most professions have in the last generation, perhaps in the last 25, 30 or 40 years, been undergoing a number of changes in their relations with the public. Even the scientists—and we have been speaking a good deal about medical men—who, 15 or 20 years ago, lived in their ivory tower and paid no attention to what the public wanted, and who made their discoveries, presented them and took no responsibility for them, are now coming to think about their relations with the public.
This Bill and the Bill which the House discussed yesterday seem to me to represent a corresponding change in the legal profession. The law is being brought nearer to the ordinary people. I hope that when it is brought nearer to the Scottish people the spirit of the legal profession in administering the whole matter of legal aid and legal advice will be one not simply of dealing with the niceties and details of the law but a spirit of trying to make sure that the people of Scotland as a whole understand what the legal system is for, and understand its aims. I think that in spite of the fact that some legal authorities are now objecting to particular things, they have generally accepted the main lines of this Bill. I hope that because that general acceptance exists, it is an illustration of the spirit of co-operation which will grow more full and complete between the legal profession of Scotland and the people of Scotland itself.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I rise to welcome thin Bill as a solid piece of work and a step which I feel might well have been taken many years ago. It was stated. I think by the hon. and gallant Member who spoke first for the Opposition, that the law was a bulwark


between the people and the Executive. He could quite well have said also that that bulwark has seldom, if ever, been available to the majority of the people of Scotland. In the circumstances that exist today it would be true to say that there are only two classes to whom the backing of the law or the resort to it to pursue their legal rights, is available. I refer to the very poor and the very rich.
Legal aid, which, surprisingly enough, despite what has been said in this Debate, is actually the subject of this Bill, only extends at the moment to people who are more or less "down and out." People of very ordinary or moderate means who have often had a desire to pursue their rights in the law court, or have sometimes been forced to do so, have been prevented from pursuing their rights at all or from following them to the full extent because of the cost of litigation in Scotland. Only last week I heard at a meeting an appeal from certain men in Scotland who are pursuing a legal battle with a land-owner—the men of Knoydart. Many other men who have been in the same position have had to give in just because they lacked the means. While there has been law in Scotland, there has not always been justice, simply because that bulwark has not been available.
In view of this simple Bill, which extends the possibility of that bulwark to a great many people in Scotland, I find it very strange that we can have speeches such as we have heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Eastern Renfrew (Major Lloyd). Like my hon. Friend, I believe that the hon. and gallant Member is sincere, but I think that we should have had a far different speech from him had he read the Bill as well as he has evidently read the memorandum from the legal profession. I tell him that since I have read that memorandum from the legal profession in Scotland, that profession has gone down considerably in my estimation. I deplore the memorandum because I consider it to be a very poor interpretation of a Bill by people who are, by profession, interpreters of Acts of Parliament.
I think that right from the start the sort of Press propaganda that has been going on, particularly in East Scotland, and in Edinburgh, has been quite unrealistic.

I hope that a full account will be given of the replies that were given by the Solicitor-General—which, I hope will be followed up by the Lord Advocate—to suggestions that there has been no representation, and no consultation. I have even had a letter from the Kilmarnock Faculty of Solicitors saying that the legal bodies in Scotland did not get a single opportunity. Yet we hear today there were at least two opportunities of actually meeting the Law Officers of Scotland. I think there is something very far wrong, not only when these letters are written, but when the Press of Scotland, without hearing the Government's side of the story, goes so far as to accept these criticisms and to write leading articles about them.
I feel, too, that there has been considerable misrepresentation of the Secretary of State for Scotland in regard to this Bill. After all, the 1424 Act of Parliament states:
The King, for the love of God, sail ordain the judge, before whom the cause should be determined, to purwey and get a leill and wise advocate to follow sic puir creature's cause.
according to the old crabbit Scots language. In this Bill it really is the Secretary of State for Scotland, in the changing state of the situation, who is carrying out that job.
There is no question of nationalising the legal profession. The Law Society is to run this whole scheme. They have to organise the scheme and work it and where the Secretary of State for Scotland comes in is purely in approving it, to the satisfaction of this House and the people of Scotland.

Major Lloyd: Surely the hon. Gentleman must be aware of the fact that the Secretary of State does not merely approve, but makes regulations and other things which are not just a matter of approval? I cannot accept that he has only to approve.

Mr. Ross: He approves, according to Clause 7, and Clause 11 which is supplementary says he may:
make such regulations as appear to him necessary…for giving effect…
A great deal of harm has been done to this Bill, which could have been treated in a very sane and realistic way, as was done with the English Bill yesterday,


without introducing all this unnecessary political controversy. After all, it is not the solicitors, the law agents and the advocates that we should be mainly concerned with, although naturally we want to see justice done to them. It is the people of Scotland, those who have been debarred from their rights simply because of economic circumstances. Not just the poor, not just the so-called working classes, but the middle classes who have been faced with very difficult circumstances and who have had to give in. This power of the law has been wielded as a weapon against others simply because it was realised they were people who could not afford to contest matters in the courts. If they could contest them in the Sheriff Court, they could not go so far as the Court of Session—

Major Lloyd: That is a sweeping accusation. Could the hon. Gentleman justify such a grave accusation? Could he give one instance?

Mr. Ross: There is a case proceeding at the present moment—

Major Lloyd: It is sub judice.

Mr. Ross: —which I have already instanced where these peasants—the Scottish peasantry of whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be talking so very sentimentally on 25th January—have had to resort to passing round the hat in order to contest a case for the protection of what they consider are their rights.
We should look at the matter more from the point of view of the people of Scotland, and if we do so, we shall pay particular attention to this question of the means test. That is the kind of thing we should be discussing, and not sweeping generalities about nationalisation. We should be getting down to the actual Bill. I personally feel that the means test is something which should not be in the Bill at all. There is a stigma attached to the means test procedure. There is no reason why a declaration of means should not be given and accepted, and if the Lord Advocate feels that is not enough, let him put in some statutory penalities.
Above all, I feel that at the present moment, legal aid to the poor is under

the sort of stigma that existed in the old days as regards the parish, and also public assistance—a feeling which we hope is being wiped out in the recent extension of the national system. But it is evident that the stigma remains. I feel that there is no reason why the National Assistance Board should come in at all. Let us treat the people of Scotland for what they are—on the whole, an honest race. It may be that that is where this Debate differs from the Debate that went on yesterday. Let us accept that declaration and carry on with it, knowing that the abuses, if any, will be very few and that we can take the necessary steps against them.
The actual working of this Measure should be on the same lines as National Insurance. People going for legal aid should be made to feel that it is just an ordinary service of the nation and that there is no condescension on the part of the people who are interviewing them, and no obligation upon them, but that it is a natural right. If we go along these lines, we shall make it a humane and reasonable scheme, although we must, in the future, make considerable changes in order to make this a service. I can see hon. Gentlemen looking up as though this was something which could be given as an argument for nationalisation. I do not think on those lines at all. I want to see this service available freely to the people of Scotland and for the law to be really what it is meant to be—a bulwark between the people and the Executive. I think the fact that the Government are making that bulwark available to the people destroys the argument about bureaucracy applied either to Edinburgh or to Whitehall.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I wish to confine my remarks to a very narrow channel because I have been unable to go very deeply into this Bill and I also deplore the fact that the legal profession, quite plainly, has not had much opportunity of discussing it. I want to follow on the remarks of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and remind the House of one of the basic principles that the Cameron Report laid down. That was that this Bill should be flexible. If we are going to have a Bill of this description—and I raise this matter now because this is the only


chance we shall get of raising it owing to the way in which the Financial Resolution is drawn—I fail to see why we should put a limit at a definite figure. The limit is put at the figure of £420 net income after certain deductions. Assuming total costs of an action to be £500, if I am right in my calculations, that will mean that a man whose net income works out at £418 may if he loses, have to contribute half the difference between £156 and £418, which amounts to £131. But if his income is £422 he will have to pay £500—the whole cost of the action.
Surely something more flexible than that could have been designed. We are told in the report that flexibility should be the order of the day. Here, however, we have an absolutely rigid limit which cannot be altered. It is so rigid that, unlike the provisions of the National Insurance Act, it is put in the body of the Bill and not even in a Schedule. Definitely that is wrong. I do not know what should be done about it, but I suggest that there are a number of considerations in the Financial Resolution which will tie down the discussion in the Committee so greatly that it would be as well if we did not get to the Financial Resolution tonight.
My only other main point is to reinforce what has been said about the means of assessment. As I understand it, one goes first to the local committee and from there one is passed to a panel solicitor. Thereafter, if there is a probabilis causa, one is then subjected to this means test by the National Assistance Board. The other main principle laid down by the Cameron Committee was that we should build on existing foundations. We have an existing foundation in the statutory declaration that has always been made on means. Surely, that is satisfactory and sufficient. Cannot that be accepted? It would be possible to insert in the Bill legal sanctions in the event of the declaration being falsely made. Equally, it would be possible if the local committee or even the solicitor had reasonable doubts as to the validity of the declaration—then and in that case only—to submit it to the National Assistance Board. It seems to me that where we have a well-established and good practice it is a great pity to discard it merely in order to come into line with what is being put into force south of the Border.

The Lord Advocate: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that under the provisions of the Sheriff Court Act, 1907, the person responsible for making an investigation into means is the inspector of poor for the parish?

Mr. Macpherson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman might perhaps be able to say how that has been altered in the light of current legislation. It is on the basis of that statutory declaration that legal aid is given at present. I fail to see why that system should not be maintained in the future.
I feel, from my reading of the Bill, that it shows signs of speed in drafting. We shall have to go into that matter in the Committee stage. I also feel—and I say this with great regret—that the White Paper on the Scottish Bill is neither so clear nor so well written as the White Paper on the English Bill. That is unfortunate. It shows signs of haste and the fact that before the Scottish White Paper was drafted, the English Bill had to be prepared. I deplore that.
I deplore also the fact that at the time when the preparations were being made to put this legislation into force, there were no Scottish members on the Rushcliffe Committee so that Scottish interests might be more represented and so that when the time came for its application to Scotland, it would be made easier. The practice of legal aid for the poor is much more developed in Scotland than in England. Surely, this was a case in which England might very well and profitably have followed Scotland instead of Scotland following England. If that had been done, I feel that the Bill would have been more readily adaptable—for a lot of adaptation will be necessary during the Committee stage—to the needs of Scotland.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. J. L. Williams: I am glad to take part in a Debate in which lawyers and laymen mix so freely. I hope that this is symbolic of the co-operation which we shall have in the administration of this Measure. In fact, the place of the layman in the administration, is the chief point I wish to discuss. First, I should like to welcome the Bill. With other hon. Members, I agree that it is long overdue and that it meets a need that is felt very


keenly among a great section of the population both in town and in country. I agree with the tributes paid to the good work already done by various agencies in this direction. That has been helpful because now there are foundations, upon which to build. The one adverse comment that I would make is that the present facilities are inadequate, as we all know. Speaking, like some of my colleagues, as one who has taken part in local government administration and who has sat on the magisterial bench for a few years, I consider that this Bill will be welcomed greatly by a large section of our people.
I come to the question of the position of laymen in the administration. Despite the words which appear in Clause 7 (4) about persons who are not members of the Law Society who may be put on the legal aid committee, I do not find any real guarantee that the "consumer" will have representation. After all, the litigant is the most important person under this Bill. I suggest that not only the persons who advise, but also the persons who are to be advised should have some voice in the administration. As far as I could gather from the Debate yesterday on the English Bill, and from correspondence I have received, the objection to more laymen being represented is that only lawyers can deal with the problems involved. That is true in many cases, but it is certainly not true of one important section of this provision. Another reason is that only lawyers can keep confidences and that laymen cannot. That reason is not very impressive.
It is most desirable to have laymen on these committees, because public money has to go to lawyers, and I suggest that persons other than lawyers should have some voice in its administration. There are various non-legal points to be discussed on these committees, such as questions of the time and place to meet the people concerned, and other matters which may be regarded as the external part of the work of a committee, rather than its strictly legal part. I suggest that a lot of this work would be done, not only as well, but much better by members of city councils who are in touch with their respective districts.
I have had correspondence—and mention has been made of it by the hon.

and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd)—regarding the proposal to use the National Assistance Board as the testing machinery. I know that opposition has been expressed to that idea. I have had a letter from an organisation representing one section of the legal profession in Scotland, and they consider that this work should be done by officers under the legal aid committee. I suggest that to hand over the work in that fashion to another body and replace the machinery of the National Assistance Board by another type of machinery, would be quite undesirable. I think it would be unfair to the legal aid committee itself. At least some lawyers, I know, have a doubt about that, and there is the additional point that the body which will examine the ability of litigants to pay will also decide, in borderline cases, whether the lawyer will receive 100 per cent. or 85 per cent. I suggest that, to have a committee, with only lawyers on it, to decide that point would be highly undesirable.
Another objection which I have is that it is unfair to the taxpayer to burden him with the cost of two kinds of machinery to perform the same kind of work, and I suggest that it would be equally unfair to the National Assistance Board itself to suggest that there is still too much poor law atmosphere about it for this purpose. Most of us have been saying in this House and telling our constituents in the country that the old poor law has gone and that we now have a new machinery with a new outlook. I believe that a great deal has been done in the last few years, and especially in the last few months, in modernising and humanising the system which deals with public assistance. In fact, we have a Minister who has devoted a great deal of personal and special attention to this matter.
Further, it would be even more unfair to suggest to the applicant for national assistance that the National Assistance Board machinery is quite good enough for the purpose of obtaining food and clothing, but that, when it becomes a question of obtaining legal assistance, that machinery is not good enough. It is also unfair to suggest that that machinery is quite good enough in the case of a man with an income of £2 or £3 a week, but not good enough for a man who has an income of £7 or £8 a


week. Those are some of the points that should be kept in mind before replacing the National Assistance Board with the other machinery suggested.
No doubt, there will be much experimental work in the next few years in connection with this Measure, and considerably more experience will be gained and much information obtained. This information will help us to know, among other things, to what extent we shall need to adjust our national insurance scheme to include the service embodied in the Bill. Having listened to the arguments from both sides of the House concerning the means level and the ways of testing income—which incomes should be excluded and which included—my view has been confirmed that there is no way out, and that the only solution, in the end, will be to bring this service into our social insurance system.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: May I say, first, that the general purpose of this Bill is one which I personally accept? I think we must, in this age, do whatever is necessary to ensure that no person, on account of poverty, shall be precluded from getting a fair crack of the legal whip.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not know whether that is the right way to describe it.

Mr. Stewart: So I support this Measure. I think the Rushcliffe Committee was set up by the Coalition Government, and we all felt that something of this order was needed. I have not myself moved away from that general view, but I confess that I am a little disturbed by some of the speeches made from the Government Bench today. They seem to me to be based on an incorrect assessment of the present position and to assume developments here which I can only regard as highly dangerous.
Let me take first, my view that hon. Members opposite have an incorrect appreciation of what is done now. The hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) gave us a very interesting speech; he spoke of the idea that at present it was only the novices among lawyers and advocates who were allotted the task of looking after the poor. The poor, he said, were guinea pigs for young and inexperienced men.

Mr. Willis: I quoted from a solicitor who had practical experience of the legal aid scheme in Edinburgh and his words were that the poor were being treated as guinea pigs.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member will recollect that he supported the view of that letter. He said, in fact, that under the present system the poor are merely being handed over to the young and inexperienced men and that the poor were nothing but guinea pigs. I must protest against that. It is a completely false picture of what is happening, at any rate in those parts of the country that I know. I can quote the county burgh of Cupar, where the solicitors and lawyers in turn take the responsibility of looking after the cases of those who are designated as the poor, and every lawyer in Cupar—and we have some very good lawyers—takes his turn in that duty. It does not matter whether he is the weakest or the most brilliant lawyer, he takes his turn, and, therefore, the poor person in the county of Fife—I do not know why I must always be defending the county of Fife—is getting in his turn, like every other person, the best possible legal advice. I protest most strongly against any suggestion that at the present time the legal profession as a whole is handing over this great, humane public responsibility to the young and inexperienced, who regard the poor as mere guinea pigs. That is not the case. It may be the case in Edinburgh, but I am not responsible for that.
My second observation is that Government speakers are supporting this Bill upon an entirely wrong assumption as to its purpose and future character. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and the hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. J. L. Williams) said in the plainest language that what they desired was a service of legal advice as a matter of right to the citizen just as the Health Service is a matter of right. The hon. Member said that it should be like an insurance service. If that is the view of the Government's supporters, sooner or later it will become the view of the Government themselves. That being so, we have got to realise that we are moving into a state where the lawyers and advocates of Scotland will be put in precisely the same position as doctors are in under the Health Service,


with all the dangers of their being made State servants. I am opposed to doctors becoming State servants, but to make lawyers State servants, is to kill and destroy the whole of the traditions of the Scottish legal profession.
If that were the view of the Government, it would be much better if the Lord Advocate told us so tonight, so that we may know what we are doing. If he does not regard this Bill as a Measure leading to a public law service like the Health Service, then he must use the plainest language to disabuse our minds of that doubt. In these matters, I always come in the end to this conclusion. It does not matter what service we try to operate for the benefit of the people—health, education or legal aid—if we want that service to work, it is surely common sense to say that we must get the co-operation of those who are going to work it. Surely, that is clear. Why do the Government consult with the Trades Union Congress before they take any step with regard to the great problems of labour? They would never dream of introducing a Bill concerning matters of labour, without consulting the T.U.C. They would do it, not because the T.U.C. are their friends and paymasters, but, presumably, because the trade union leaders would have to work a Measure concerning labour and working conditions.
Similarly, this Measure will not work unless we obtain the sympathy and understanding of the legal profession. At the moment, the legal profession has not displayed any sympathy for or understanding of this Bill. Such evidence as we have is that it has very great doubts about it. Therefore, in Committee we shall have to propose a certain number of Amendments, or ask a number of questions.
I invite the Lord Advocate, who I am sure would desire this Bill to be a success not only now but in the future, seriously to try to meet the legal profession between now and the next stage, and to discuss the fears in their minds —fears which I thoroughly understand, and, on the present facts, share. He will then probably be able to propose certain changes in the Bill. I think I can make that plea with some effect because I am in favour of this kind of

Bill. I agree that something should be done to make the law available to all people in the country. I want this scheme to work, but I am convinced that it will not work in its present form. It contains defects, it is based on entirely erroneous and unfair assumptions, and it foreshadows a future which I can only call dangerous.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have had a certain amount of sympathy with the Opposition during the course of this Debate because they have suffered from a lack of decent legal spokesman like the right hon. and learned Gentleman who recently sat for Hillhead, Mr. J. S. C. Reid. What has happened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman? They have nationalised him.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Not us; the Government.

Mr. Hughes: Throughout this Debate we have heard expressions of horror at the very thought of the legal profession being nationalised. I am not horrified by it.
I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd). It was not so much a speech as a nightmare. In this nightmare he had the awful vision of the State seizing the lawyer by wig and gown and nationalising him, thus making him a State servant. That is exactly what they have done to the right hon. and learned Gentleman who used to be the Lord Advocate. I have never heard any objection to hon. Gentlemen passing from this House to the courts of justice and becoming judges; I have never heard any objection taken to their becoming State servants. Indeed, the legal profession of this country is dying to be nationalised on terms such as those.
I welcome this Bill as a step towards making honest men of lawyers. To some extent, I do not think it goes far enough towards making the lawyer a respectable member of society and towards raising him to the level of the local medical officer of health or the local sanitary inspector. I see no objection at all to a lawyer being raised to a higher position in the regard of his fellows in the community than he occupies today. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) said that it was the Government


who had raised the right hon. and learned Gentleman the former Member for Hill-head to the level of a State servant. That is quite right; they returned good for evil. The result is that in the Debate today we have only amateur lawyers on this side, like myself, trying to criticise this Bill.
I was surprised to hear the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) quoting verses by Rudyard Kipling in support of the Bill. He might have quoted Burns, who I think is worth while quoting on this Bill. May I suggest to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that if he wants to read a good account of lawyers, as expressed from the point of view of the ordinary citizen of Scotland, he should read the Address of Beelzebub.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: If I may interrupt the hon. Member for a moment, I would point out that I was not, of course, quoting Kipling either in support or against the Bill; I was only pointing out that solicitors are in the same position as the sailors. We are apt to be shy of them, but the converse might be true.

Mr. Hughes: The only point I am making is that if poetry is going to be quoted, we ought to have a Scots poet on a Scots Bill. I would remind the House of the verses which Burns wrote when he went to the Court of Session. He wrote:
But what his common sense came short.
He eked out wi' law, man.
When hon. Members of the Opposition get enthusiastic about Government Measures, as did the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) yesterday, we who sit somewhere outside these little secret circles look upon it with a certain amount of suspicion. It makes us feel that when we come to the Committee stage, we should examine the Bill very carefully indeed.
I do not understand what objections hon. and gallant Members will have to a Bill of this kind when they consider how litigation works in the Services. In courts martial an officer puts the point of view of a man and a man is not subjected to a means test. The soldier tried before a court martial—I speak from personal experience—has the choice

of an officer to represent him. There is no means test, but the officer puts up a very good case and a very fair case for the man, and in that respect I have to admit that military law is more commonsense than civil law. I hope under this Bill to see that the ordinary citizen will have access to a lawyer in the same way as a soldier has access to an officer in a court martial and that there will he no means test. In that way the lawyers will be raised to the level of responsible public servants such as medical officers of health and sanitary inspectors.
I should like to know if legal aid will be given to people whose children appear before the juvenile courts. That is not specifically mentioned in the Schedule, but I believe it should be. I know the point of view of the ordinary man towards the law in this country. I have had some experience of justice in a small town and for more than 12 years it was my painful duty to sit in the local burgh court on a Saturday morning to dispense mercy with justice. The dilemma which faced the people who came before the court was whether to consult a local lawyer and run up a heavy bill, or not. Frequently when they came before me they pleaded guilty, because they knew it was better to plead guilty before me, than to wait another month and consult legal advice and run up a lawyer's bill.
I will quote an instance. There was brought before me on one occasion a miner charged with the heinous offence of playing bagpipes at a late hour of the night on 25th January to the annoyance of His Majesty's lieges and the special annoyance of the local policeman. It was my painful duty in the court on that morning to dispense justice to a number of motorists, including a colliery manager, who had broken the law by motoring offences. This miner became more and more anxious as he found me fining the motorists at least £2. Then his turn came and he pleaded guilty. In view of the national festival, I admonished him and he did not come before me again. A few days later I met him in the street and asked him, "What do you mean by playing bagpipes so late at night?" He said, "I was not playing bagpipes at all. That was a fabrication of the policeman." I asked why he pleaded guilty and he said, "I thought


it would be better to plead guilty and get it over than to wait for a month and consult a lawyer, as by that time there might be another sanguinary illegitimate on the Bench." That is the way in which local working folk regard justice in the ordinary courts of this country.
I welcome one provision of the Bill. The legal adviser who will be called upon to give necessary legal advice will be subject to the close scrutiny of some kind of legal body. At present everyone knows that although we have great tributes paid to the love of justice by the legal profession, we have very poor lawyers who often exploit the poverty and ignorance of poor people. It is true that the legal system in Scotland works and they tax lawyers' fees and lawyers' costs, but the poor man who goes to the lawyer to plead for him in cases of this kind does not know anything about legal costs and very often there is exploitation of the poorest of the poor. Because I believe this is a step towards ending the exploitation of the poorest of the poor, I am glad the Government have introduced this Bill.
One Clause I look upon with a certain degree of apprehension. That provides for the formation of a Law Society of Scotland. This looks suspiciously like egging on the lawyers of Scotland to form a trade union. It is going to engage lawyers in subversive activity and I can see the time coming when this Law Society of Scotland, having become a trade union of lawyers, will be captured by the Communist Party. The hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd) made a great mistake when he spoke of the Haldane Society. He might have associated the Haldane Society with North Hammersmith and Finsbury and worked up a splendid case for the whole Bill having been instigated and originated in Moscow. If they are encouraged to form this trade union, we might even find lawyers sending gifts of £1,000 to the starving lawyers of France.
I suggest to the Government that they should not be too enthusiastic about giving too much power to lawyers. Lawyers are all right in their place. They are a necessary evil in our present system of society like journalists, Ministers and others, but they must be kept in their place, I hope that as a result of this Bill,

after the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) and I have put in a few drastic Amendments, we shall make a step forward to the establishment of a better system of justice for Scotland.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I wish to say a word or two in support of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). He referred to a question which was spoken of yesterday, namely, the means test. The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), who led the Opposition yesterday, said that all in this House were opposed to the means test. It is news to this side of the House to hear that hon: Members opposite are against the means test. Most of us on this side have been against it all along and I cannot see any reason for the means test in this Bill.
We have introduced a Measure whereby every citizen is allowed to have a doctor. If they wish to choose a particular doctor and pay for him, well and good, but any citizen can have a doctor or specialist just as, under this Bill, any citizen should be able to get a solicitor or barrister. Why should not the same principle apply to legal matters as applies to health matters? When the Government have had the experience which they have had on the working of the poor man's lawyer, I cannot see why they do not take the broad wide sweep and make the thing really efficient. We should aim at a national scheme of the broadest possible character. There is no reason at all why we should not do that. There has been a campaign against this Bill. Right hon. Members on the Front Bench this side and hon. Members on the other side who have been carrying on the anti-Red campaign are now getting some pf it back. The Lord Advocate is being accused of introducing Soviet law into Scotland. That is the tale which has been told in some of the Glasgow Press. I do not know what the Lord Advocate will have to say about an accusation of that kind.
I agree with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire when he says that at the present time the lawyer is a necessary evil. I remember debating with the then Solicitor-General, Mr. T. B. Morrison, K.C., in 1919, in Perth, and iris almost unbelievable, but in the course of his


speech he raised the question, "Who will do the dirty work under Socialism?" I said, "There will be no dirty work; we will close down the law courts." I look forward to the day when we are rid of the Stanleys of this world and people can live as men and women should live. We shall then be able to do without the legal fraternity, but at present they are necessary, and they are often very valuable to the ordinary citizens who get into legal difficulties and cannot see their way to get clear of them.
I hope it will be possible to discuss Amendments, if the Money Resolution will permit it, to lead to a much wider extension of the terms of this Bill so that all the people of this country will have the right—as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire says the soldier has the right—if they are in difficulties of any kind which create legal problems and legal difficulties, to approach a solicitor or the best barrister there is in the country just as, if they were suffering from ill health or needing medical advice, they could approach a doctor or specialist under the National Health Service. I see no reason why the Bill could not have been built up on the same principle. We will do our best in Committee to extend it as far as possible.

7.23 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: On this side of the House we are all indebted to the Solicitor-General for Scotland for his courtesy and for his lucid explanation of the Bill. I should like, if I may, to congratulate him on the double event which he pulled off in making at the same time both his maiden speech and his first appearance on the Front Bench in charge of a Bill.

Mr. Gallacher: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) will permit me, I want to say I forgot to draw attention to that point. The Solicitor-General for Scotland is my Member of Parliament and I wanted to express my appreciation of the fine way he represented me.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am not quite certain whether the Solicitor-General for Scotland will be more happy or more embarrassed at receiving the congratulations of the Third International. I will

leave him to work that out with his constituent later. Nor would I advise him to rely wholeheartedly on the continued support of his constituent in all circumstances. I would advise him that he might fear even the Greeks when they bring gifts.
The Solicitor-General started a Debate which was completely different from the Debate we had yesterday. Almost everyone who spoke yesterday had legal experience, whereas nobody who spoke today had legal experience. I think that if we could have mixed the two Debates we probably would have achieved the ideal Debate. Undoubtedly we on this side of the House have suffered, and I am sure the whole House has suffered, from the absence of Lord Reid, formerly the Member for Hillhead, who on such an occasion would have been of the greatest value to the House as a whole and quite certainly to our party, on this side. We have to do the best we can, and I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) was able to develop a case to the admiration of all. Certainly he was able to bring forward some of the difficulties which we feel arise as a result of this Bill.
The Lord Advocate may well have said that the Bill was proceeding fairly well, with a reasonable chance of a friendly reception in Scotland, until the speeches to which we have just listened—that by the hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. J. L. Williams), who suggested that the Bill might be turned into another kind of social service, and that by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who came forward with the bright idea that the benefits of courts-martial should be extended to us all and that that was the aim to which we should bend our efforts.
This last suggestion naturally received the wholehearted support of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), who could not restrain himself at this point and who leapt forward to say that that was the line which he and his friends would follow in the Amendments which they hope to put down. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will now understand why legal opinion in Scotland would like to be sure that it is thoroughly at one with him in the Measure which has been introduced.
It is quite true, as the Solicitor-General for Scotland said, that two occasions for consultation have been given, one as late, I think, as 29th October. But there were admittedly only these two. The position with the English Societies was quite different. I think it is worth while to call the attention of the House to the very different treatment which was extended to the profession in England. It is true that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) welcomed the Bill and drew attention to the close co-operation there had been between the profession and those bringing forward the scheme. He was, however, only dotting the i's and crossings the t's of the statement which had been made by the Attorney-General. In yesterday's HANSARD the Attorney-General is reported as saying:
The Government have received the fullest support from both branches of the profession.
He had said earlier:
It was necessary to obtain the consent of the Law Society and of the Bar Council to undertake the very responsible and onerous duties which the proposals would impose upon them…This Bill is the result of the work done between the two branches of the profession and the Government in order to implement the proposals of the Rushcliffe Committee."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 15th December. 1948; Vol. 459, c. 1233.]
The position in Scotland, as we have to deal with it tonight is quite different. We have here the criticism of the Writers to the Signet. We have all read the protests of the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. I have here a telegram from the Society of Law Agents saying that they protest emphatically at being given insufficient time to consider Part I of the Legal Aid Bill and asking for postponement. When the Writers to the Signet, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Agents' Society all protest to us within the last few hours—and I have no doubt to other hon. Members—it is clear that a position exists quite different from that outlined by the English Attorney-General, on which he received the compliment and support of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby.
Quite a different position exists in Scotland that will certainly have to be cleared up. I trust the Lord Advocate will be able to give us an assurance that

the Bill will not be proceeded with, after we resume, at any rate during the month of January. I trust he can give an assurance that it will not be proceeded with until February so that the consultations, which for some reason or other were not completely satisfactory to the legal profession before Christmas, may take place after Christmas—all the more since when he was defending the proposals in the judges Bill he made a strong plea that we should not be asked to transact legal business in Scotland in the days immediately following Hogmanay. I trust that he will be able to give us that assurance.
I hope in the next place that he will be able to give us an assurance that the Financial Resolution will not be taken tonight but will be held over until our return. The Financial Resolution enshrines, and makes irrevocable, I fear, one of the provisions in the Bill to which all the bodies that have made representations to us have made the strongest objection, and that is on the position of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Financial Resolution says:
A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the net sums required …(subject to any discretion of the Secretary of State to modify the Act by regulations there under to meet special cases)…
I fear that when that has been passed by the House, if it is passed by the House, the function of the Committee in dealing with the provision in the Bill will be difficult. An argument could be made on the Question that the Clause stand part, but to move Amendments to improve the proposed statute would be extremely difficult. This is the point to which so many representations have been addressed.
We have before us the Report of the Cameron Committee. Paragraph 5, which I think was quoted by the Solicitor-General, did draw attention to the special position of the Secretary of State, and, indeed, of the Lord Advocate. There is no parallel in Scotland to the position of the Lord Chancellor, who is both head of the legal profession and a Member of the Cabinet. I know well—I have had experience—of the position of the Secretary of State. It is quite true that in a way he is the legal heir to the Chancellor of Scotland: He is Keeper of the Seal, and thereby inherits, great precedence, and some responsibility. Nevertheless,


he is more and more, and must be, an active politician, a fighting politician. I myself in my time certainly did not in any sense of the word try to pull my punches in any political battle into which I entered; nor do I think it would be fair to ask any Secretary of State to do so. But how unwise to put someone in that position as a superior in legal circles in which this Bill would inevitably place him. Paragraph 5 of the Cameron Report says:
The Lord President of the Court of Sessions has no ministerial responsibility or departmental functions and is not answerable, as a minister or head of department, to either House of Parliament.
That is true. He does not have the necessary staff to handle this work, and he has not got himself the power of appearing to defend himself in Parliament if criticised. However, I do not think that either of these things applies to the Lord Advocate. The Cameron Committee, under the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates reported:
for this reason we recommend that the Lord Advocate should be associated directly with the supervision and administration of the Scheme which we propose.
They went on to say:
We are of course aware that there may be some anomaly in the Lord Advocate, who, as head of the criminal administration of Scotland, may be responsible for initiation of many criminal proceedings, the defence is which may be financed in whole or in part from public funds, having at the same time a direct supervisory responsibility for the very organisation which is providing the means to combat these proceedings, but we consider that this is an anomaly which may be accepted and which is unlikely to cause difficulty or embarrassment in practice.
That is the argument which the Lord Advocate will have to answer. I have no doubt that he will address himself to it, and it may be that he will convince us; but that is a very strong recommendation, and it is there that the provisions of the Bill differ from the recommendations of the Rushcliffe Committee and the Cameron Committee's Report— I am thinking of the Cameron Committee's Report as the instrument for bringing into force the Rushcliffe Committee's recommendations. It is there that they differ from the Bill.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eastern Renfrew (Major Lloyd) spoke with some heat on this subject, and I think he was entitled to, more particularly because of the speeches which

were deliverd afterwards; because if ever speeches were delivered suggesting the entire subordination of the legal system to the will of the Secretary of State for Scotland, they were the speeches that were delivered by subsequent speakers. Those who say that the legal profession should be subject to Parliament or this House are bringing in very novel and far-reaching doctrines.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire said that Lord Reid had been nationalised and that he was in the position in which all lawyers should be. But he is not yet subject to regulations made by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I can imagine the arguments that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby would address to this House if it were proposed to make His Majesty's judges subject to regulations to be prescribed by the head of the Executive, however powerful he might be. Wars have been fought on this, and heads have rolled. These are dangerous doctrines to bring forward in connection with a Bill with whose objects we all sympathise—the object that nobody should be debarred by lack of money from access to the courts of justice of this country.
Some of the arguments which were brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) in defence of the Bill were more wounding than any attacks on it. He said that the new provisions under which people are working, the new Acts which they had to understand, are so complicated that without legal aid they cannot understand them at all. He said that the Rent Restriction Acts and the Town and Country Planning Act—that darling of the Government mean that we have to introduce a legal system to enable people to get along despite these new lions in their path, because it is impossible for the ordinary citizen to understand them at all. I rather fear this new principle that first of all the Government make laws so complicated that nobody can understand them, and then introduce a free legal system so that they can be explained. I would suggest that the short cut may be not to introduce these laws; and then everybody would be much happier.
The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) spoke of this Bill as a Bill of an exploratory nature. It is not of an


exploratory nature in Scotland. As the Solicitor-General himself has said, we have been working under a procedure of this kind for 500 years in Scotland, and one of the points made by the profession in Scotland is that we should not attempt to sweep away so much of it as they think this Bill attempts to sweep away simply because a very learned Committee has reported on the subject in England. The difficulty in which the House is placed tonight is that we have the unusual difficulty for Parliament—the unheard of difficulty—that we have not enough lawyers. It has never occurred before. I do not know whether the ghosts of many who have been attacked in the past for crowding out the House with professional gentlemen are chuckling amongst the blessed, where no doubt they have appeared by this time; but here is the whole Scottish Grand Committee without a single back bench lawyer upon it and feeling the need of them greatly. That is an example, no doubt, why a Bill of this kind should pass through the House.
It is not true, I think, as has been said, that there has been no attention given to this problem in Scotland. Poor persons have had for many hundreds of years legal advice in Scotland and, as the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) said, there is a rota by which, in many cases, they are getting the highest possible advice which anyone could have. Even the suggestion of bringing the solicitors into a single organisation under Part II of the Bill follows quite closely the Bill which was introduced by Lord Normand in the last Session and which, in turn, was based on a Bill introduced before the war, and which got its Second Reading in 1938 but was stopped by the oncoming of the war.
In Scotland we have done our best to assure the access of the citizens to the courts. This is a development along historical lines and should be so treated. There are, of course, many points which we should like to raise in Committee and on which we shall, no doubt, have to lay considerable emphasis; the position, for instance, of certain of the solicitors under the Bill is one which will need very careful examination. But the fundamental principles which have been brought forward are principles which have been

mooted and, in many cases, agreed to in principle, in Scotland for many years. But the translation of them into practice and into the Clauses of a Bill have undoubtedly led to a great deal of anxiety and uneasiness in legal circles in Scotland, not because it is going to mean hardship for the lawyers but because it is going to mean the weakening of the liberties of the people. If the executive becomes supreme over the judiciary, then the last barrier to free society has been swept away; and in so far as the Secretary of State and other executive officers find that it is beginning to be possible to bring the lawyers of our country into one group, and then to make regulations under which that group has to operate, that is undoubtedly a step towards that dangerous end.
The Cameron Committee suggested as a safeguard that an advisory committee should be closely associated with the working of the scheme—an advisory committee of three members of the Faculty of Advocates, three solicitors and three independent members to advise and consult with the Lord President. I do not know whether that advisory committee finds a place in the new scheme or whether it could be introduced into the scheme, but the new relations—

Mr. McAllister: Before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman leaves that point, which has been made by several speakers in the course of this Debate, is it really true that anywhere in this Bill there is the slightest interference with the judiciary? There is some help to lawyers but nothing that conceivably interferes with the judiciary.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It was not I who said that Lord Reid had been nationalised. It was a supporter of the Bill who said that one of the highest leading legal officers in the land was a nationalised judge—and then went on to emphasise that and what he would like it to lead to. I was saying that from these incautious remarks we could see the way that some, at any rate, of the supporters of this Bill wish to go, and I said that in so far as the Secretary of State, a political officer, assumed control over a great portion of the legal machinery of Scotland, we were moving towards that end. I do not think that anyone can say that it is a step away from it.
I believe that the difficulty of the relationship of the highest executive to the machinery of the law is a relationship which will need some further thinking out. I find the position of the Lord Chancellor in relation to the new tribunals a very difficult and obscure position. I am sure that all this will need some thinking out in Scotland, where the fact that we are linked together with the Lord Chancellor, who is a very special kind of officer and who has no opposite number in Scotland, has led us in numerous Acts—coal and gas and many others—into a rather awkward position. I am not at all sure that some new body should not re-define the position of our great officers the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Advocate for Scotland, the Secretary of State and former Keeper of the King's Seal—whether some re-definition of their relationship will not be needed to be worked out before we finish with the new position in which the executive and the judiciary are finding themselves.
For the present, we strongly request that the Lord Advocate will give us an undertaking that the Bill will not be proceeded with before February; and we also request that the financial Resolution should be held over. If he can satisfy us on at least one of these points, I and my hon. Friends would certainly not wish to divide against the Bill, but we reserve our right to bring forward Amendments in Committee and our further rights on Third Reading if we are not satisfied with the Bill as it returns to the House.

7.48 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): The Debate on this Bill has taken, as the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has said, rather a different line, so far as Part I is concerned, from the Debate on a similar Bill which applies to England which took place yesterday. The Debate has been interesting in that many lay points of view have been advanced in contradistinction to the rather overloading of legal views which characterised the English Debate. I am sure, however, that hon. Members on both sides of the House regret that the Opposition have not at their disposal at the present time a Scottish lawyer to

advance the technical side of their argument. I personally sympathise with them in that respect, because it would make my job a little easier if I could deal with the technical aspects of it with one of my professional brethren. That rather indicates how the old order changes, because time was when we were bereft of any legal advisers on this side of the House and hon. Gentlemen opposite had a superfluity, even to embarrassment, of these riches.
The moderate and more responsible members of the Opposition have indicated quite clearly that, consistent with the new view held in Scotland, there is more or less general approval for the underlying principles of this Bill. That, I think, cannot be stressed too strongly, because many of the criticisms of the Bill proceeded on what I conceived to be misconceptions, and I trust that I shall convince the House that they were misconceptions before I resume my seat. If we proceed from the fundamental basis that the principles of the Bill are accepted and acceptable, both to the public and to the profession, at least we have a good starting off point.
The tone and tenor of the Debate strayed a little into what one might almost term party lines, directly as a result of and consequential upon the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd).

Major Lloyd: Hear, hear.

The Lord Advocate: He is apparently very proud of the fact that he can introduce politics into even a non-political Debate. I do not intend to occupy any of the time at my disposal by discussing the speech of the hon. and gallant Member, because on his own confession his information was not only second hand but third hand; he proceeded on false premises, he gave expression to a lot of party political propaganda, which I am sure was embarrassing to his colleagues, particularly on the Front Bench, on a Bill of this nature, and I really must say that he followed a line which is characteristic of certain sections of the Scottish Press, with which I shall deal in the course of my speech.
We are very pleased to introduce this Bill, and I am very pleased and proud to be associated with it and to have the


honour and privilege of helping to pilot it through Parliament and make it part of our legal machinery in Scotland, because Part I of this Bill is a landmark in the history of our administration of justice. This is not a complete Measure representing the millennium. Now, I do not want that to be misunderstood, and I do not want any sinister interpretation to be put on that remark. Everyone will, I think, realise that we are starting off in this scheme in a modest way as experience shows how it can best be expanded and developed, then it would be the desire of every one that it should so be done. But it is a distinct advance towards removing the anomalies and restrictions which have clothed our juridical system heretofore. If it errs, it errs on the side of caution; but in this new enterprise it is desirable to build on the existing machinery and not to overload the machine to such an extent that it might cease to function.
Provision is made to allow us to extend the operation of the scheme as experience shows that extension to be desirable and physically practicable. I am sure that it would be the wish of the House that the public and the profession should be satisfied that we should start by providing an efficient machine which can be so expanded, rather than attempting to set up an over-encumbered machine and lose the good in a hasty attempt to achieve the better.
The Bill is designed in the interests of the public. Let us be quite clear about that. That is the one underlying fundamental principle of the Bill. It is not a Bill designed in the interests of the legal profession as such; they are, I think, inherent beneficiaries under the scheme, but the principal purpose of the Bill is the interests of the public, to give them freer and more uninhibited access to our courts of justice. The scheme will be operated by the legal profession in a manner unique in our constitution, because, subject to certain financial safeguards, which will be governed by regulations, the Government will hand over a very substantial sum of money to the legal profession to allow it to operate the scheme on its own.
I ask hon. Members opposite who have taken the view that we are making the legal profession State servants—as if that

were a crime; but I do not want to argue that point in this Debate—to take note of the fact that, subject to certain restrictions so far as the financial expenditure is concerned—because, after all, we are responsible to Parliament for the expenditure of that money—a very substantial sum of money is being handed to the legal profession to allow them to operate this scheme on their own. But I should be less than frank if I did not say that it is my intention that the financial provisions of the scheme shall be to the benefit of the profession, despite the limitation of the fees to 85 per cent.—

Major Lloyd: Like the dentists.

The Lord Advocate: —because the loss of the 15 per cent. Will be more than offset by the guarantee of payment and the fact that payment is on a solicitor and client basis.
So far as counsel are concerned, again a sinister motive was interpolated into the scheme by the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew because counsel were to be paid direct out of the scheme. That arrangement was reached as a result of our consultations with the legal profession; it was reached in the interests of the Faculty of Advocates so that there would be no delay in paying over the fees due to counsel by the solicitor. It sometimes happens—although I am not suggesting anything improper about it—that in. the welter of work a solicitor finds it difficult to make up the fees due to counsel, and delay sometimes occurs between receipt of the fees by the solicitor and payment of the fees to counsel. This particular proposal was introduced in order to make direct and more expeditious payment to counsel for their services.
In passing from the old system of legal aid for the poor into this new era, I should like to pay my own tribute to the voluntary work done by the legal profession in this connection in the past 500 years. One of my predecessors, Henry Erskine, had a reputation drawn from the following phrase used by one of his friends:
There's nae a puir man in Scotland need want a friend nor fear a foe while Henry Erskine lives.
This was the tradition in which the legal system for the poor was carried out by lawyers, great and small, and that era


should not be allowed to pass without tribute and due acknowledgment being made of the services which the profession has given in the past.
However, for the reasons given by my hon. and learned Friend, this system is no longer appropriate for present-day conditions, and so the new system is evolved. While I am sure the Bill is now welcomed by all sides of the House and by the general public in Scotland, despite what may have appeared in the Press, a certain degree of apprehension has been expressed as a result of certain letters in the Scottish Press, certain statements made by individual solicitors in Scotland, and by certain articles appearing in the Press consequential upon those different letters and statements.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will admit that representations have also been made by organisations of high legal standing?

The Lord Advocate: I was coming on to deal with that, because the representations which are made by the organisations are representations in relation to the machinery of the scheme. They do not impute to the promoters of this Bill the motives that are being imputed, at least by certain writers to the Press and by certain writers of leading articles in the Press. That is the vital distinction. The hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) said that he was appalled at the reception this Bill had got in the Press. Well, so was I; and when I tell my story perhaps hon. Members on both sides will appreciate why I was appalled. If there was a distinct grievance on the part of the legal profession, I leave it to hon. Members to decide whether I did not have an equal grievance.
Some of these criticisms proceeded from a misapprehension of the true facts of the Bill. Some are definitely based on bigoted anti-Government feeling.

Major Lloyd: Why not?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. and gallant Member says, "Why not?" and accordingly he is an advocate of bigoted anti-Government feeling. Characteristic of the latter, although I am sure the hon. and gallant Member was not the author, are the views expressed by a correspondent in "The Scotsman," writing from the

Advocate's Library in Edinburgh, stating that it is high time to protest strongly against the Labour Government's attempt to foist a system of legal aid in Scotland without consulting the legal profession. He goes on to query this faux pas on their part as just further proof of the fact that those responsible have no background or tradition of governance behind them. He signs himself "Advocatus," thereby disclosing his classical education, but he has not the courage to come out in the open to support his bigoted views, preferring to seek refuge under a cloak of anonymity. Characteristic of some of the other criticism is that we are Anglicising Scottish law, or that we are Sovietising it. I do not know whether the terms are supposed to be synonymous or not, but they are sheer unthinking propaganda directed against the Government without the slightest justification for this vicious campaign.

Mr. Willis: Not "unthinking."

The Lord Advocate: It may not be unthinking, but to my mind it is unthinkable.
The more restrained criticism is based on the allegation that this legislation has been rushed, that the legal profession has not been consulted, and that the Bill permits regulations to be made whereby the profession can be dominated and controlled by the Secretary of State. But what are the facts? In May, 1944, the Rushcliffe Committee was set up by the National Government to consider the question in the case of England and Wales. If there had been any objection to a separate investigation not being made for Scotland, that was the time when the exception should have been taken and not on the eve of the presentation of this Bill. If it is a complaint that Scotland has been ignored, it is a complaint that cannot be put at the door of this Government.

Mr. Willis: It has to be remembered that a few years previously Scotland had the Morton Report.

The Lord Advocate: I was just coming to that. If I had to surmise why it was not extended to Scotland, I should venture the view that it is because we had the Morton Report in 1938.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: The Cameron Committee was appointed on


23rd November, 1945. There is no reason why its conclusions should be the same as the Rushcliffe Report.

The Lord Advocate: I was coming to that point. The Rushcliffe Report was published in May, 1945, and in November, 1945, the Cameron Committee was set up to frame a corresponding scheme for Scotland, based on the general principles of the Rushcliffe Report. If there had been objection taken to the limitation of the terms of reference, that was the time for the exception to be taken, and not following the issue of the Report and the subsequent formulation of a Bill based on that Report. Therefore, I can accept no responsibility whatsoever for the facts that have emerged. If there is any responsibility in this House for the limitations of the terms of reference of the Cameron Committee, it must be shared equally by all Scottish Members.
The Cameron Report was issued in May, 1946, and I wish to make two observations on that Report. Despite the apparent restrictions in terms of reference, the Committee were restricted only in two matters—the fundamental principle of the extension of the existing scheme of legal aid for the poor, and the financial limitations within which legal aid would be provided. Beyond that, it was only a question of dovetailing the Scottish machinery to fit it in with the extended system of legal aid. Members will remember that the Cameron Committee proceeded on the basis of building up on the existing structure and of extending it. That is what they recommended, and that is what we have done, subject to a number of alterations in the machinery, to which I shall make reference.
The recommendations of the committee have, by and large, been adopted in this proposed scheme, and any difference has been mainly in machinery. Since May, 1946, the legal profession has been aware of these provisions and has had time to consider and digest them. Any scheme based on that Report cannot be said to have come out of the blue, and the fact that it has not been adopted simpliciter is no cause for describing the scheme on which it is based as hasty and ill-advised. Following upon that Report, a draft scheme, incorporating the general

recommendations of the Cameron Committee, was drawn up by the late Hugh Eaton, W.S., a member of the General Council of Solicitors in Scotland. That draft scheme is the basis of the White Paper that has been issued.
After it was announced in the King's Speech that legislation for legal aid would form part of the programme for the present Session, I invited, in the absence of a single unified solicitors' society for Scotland, representatives of the six societies and of the Faculty of Advocates to a meeting on 11th October this year. The reason why there was no meeting prior to that was that I felt it was not desirable to have a meeting prior to the date when we knew for certain that a Bill of this nature was to form part of the legislative programme. I can assure the House that these representatives of the six societies and of the Faculty of Advocates represented the whole of the legal profession in Scotland; the Scottish Law Agents Society alone claims to represent 75 per cent, of the solicitors in Scotland. At that meeting they were provided with a copy of the proposed scheme for legal aid, worked out in detail and generally following the recommendations of the Cameron Report.
After a general discussion lasting several hours, it was arranged to have a subsequent meeting on 29th October to discuss the proposals in the light of any observations and criticisms that the constituent societies might have to make on the original draft.

Major Lloyd: This is a very important point. The Lord Advocate has told us that he interviewed leading people on the subject and told them what he was planning, but did he tell them in confidence that the Secretary of State for Scotland was to come into the Bill and to have powers of regulation over the profession? The Cameron Report did not recommend that.

The Lord Advocate: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will wait. I am trying to give an historical review; and I think he will find that I shall deal with these points in due course. Between 11th and 29th October, the constituent bodies had an opportunity of examining these proposals in the White Paper. It was explained to them at the first meeting that they could not see a copy of the draft Bill before it was presented to


Parliament, but that the contents of the White Paper would foreshadow the contents of the Bill.
The particular point raised by the hon. and gallant Member was mentioned to a certain extent; in other words, although Clause 11 (1) was not shown to them, it was explained to them that the Law Society would be expected to prepare the scheme, subject to the concurrence of the Secretary of State and the consent of the Treasury, and that the Secretary of State would require to come in to make regulations with a view to setting up the machinery for his side of the scheme, which was largely the financial side, for which he is responsible to Parliament. I tell the House that it was intimated to them that the Secretary of State would come in as a regulation-making body, that the nature of the regulations could not be explained to them until we actually had the draft of the Bill which could be shown to them, and that it could not be shown to them until after it was presented to Parliament.
The constituent bodies each considered the White Paper between the two meetings. They came back, and we had the second meeting at which we discussed the various proposals and suggestions. At the end of that second meeting it was agreed that the general principles of the scheme as embodied in the White Paper were acceptable to all present, and that they would reserve to themselves the right to criticise any particular point in the Bill when presented and when it came to the Committee Stage, because they had not had the opportunity of seeing the Bill. It is not a question of their asking for that reservation; I offered them the reservation before they asked for it.
It is said that great publicity has been given to the fact that no time was given for proper consultation, yet it is the fact that those seven representatives from the several societies left my room in the Crown Office in Edinburgh at the end of the second meeting, each of them giving me an assurance that the scheme as propounded in the White Paper, and as hon. Members now know it, was acceptable to them and that they were prepared to work it, subject to the one reservation that when the Bill came along they would reserve to themselves the right to criticise any particular point of machinery.
In view of the fact that it has been suggested that the Faculty of Advocates

were not consulted in this matter, I want to read to the House a letter which is dated 23rd October, 1948, and addressed to me by the Clerk of the Faculty of Advocates. It is headed "Legal aid" and contains these words:
I have to thank you for the copies of the draft White Paper on the above. It was received by"—
a certain member of the Bar whose name I will not mention—
from the Home Department following upon the meeting of 11th October. The draft White Paper has now been considered by the Faculty committee on legal aid, of which [the named member] is a member, and I now beg to enclose a copy of the draft paper with the committee's suggestions shown thereon in red, for the favour of consideration prior to the meeting to be held with you in the Crown Office on 29th October, at 2.30 p.m. The Faculty will be represented at the meeting by [the named member] and also, I hope, by myself.
How, in the face of that letter, can it be said that the Faculty of Advocates were not properly consulted before the publication of this Measure. I must say, and I do it in all sincerity with every ounce of responsibility that I can muster, that while I do not think the particular letter, if strictly read, conveys the meaning which has been put upon it by certain organs of the Press, any suggestion that the Faculty or any other branch of the profession was not properly and fully consulted is quite disproved by the facts which I have put before the House and by the evidence of the letter which I have just read.
One of the points which we discussed at the second meeting was the suggestion, not from me but from the profession, that there should be a power to conscript lawyers into the scheme in the event of there not being sufficient volunteers to operate it. I opposed that suggestion, insisting that the scheme should be on a purely voluntary basis. Hon. Members will observe that the voluntary system is adopted in the Bill. I should say in parenthesis, and in fairness, that the White Paper now before the House is not the same that was before the societies in one particular respect, and that the confining of the scheme in the first instance to the courts of law and the exclusion of certain types of action, were not included in the White Paper. There were reasons for that. Hon. Members will realise that that fact in no way vitiates the point I am making and in no way


gives ground for complaint to the people who have complained.
If the critics had only, had the decency to wait for the explanation which I have now given they would have been in a proper position to make their comments in full confidence. Even the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate are surely entitled to the presumption of innocence and to the benefit of the doubt.
With regard to the letter issued by the Dean of Faculty to the leading Scottish newspapers, and which reappeared in "The Times" this morning, I should like to make the following observation. In so far as criticism is made that the views of the Faculty were not sought in the preparation of the Measure, I am confident that the explanation I have given will refute it. On a strict reading of the allegation that the Bill has never been discussed in detail with the Faculty, there seems to be a complete misapprehension by the Dean as to the procedure which is followed, and which hon. Members of this House will understand. While it is customary to have discussion with interested parties prior to the drafting of a Bill, only general principles are discussed, because Parliament is very jealous of its rights, and properly so. It would have been a breach of Parliamentary Privilege, and quite improper, if I had discussed the details of the Bill with the Faculty of Advocates or with any other body, before it had been presented to Parliament.
I had a meeting with the Dean of Faculty last week and he expressed to me some preliminary doubts about the provisions of the Bill. I pointed out to him that these were committee points which could be discussed at a later stage in the proceedings, as they did not affect the fundamental principles of the scheme. With that view I understood him to concur. It is most regrettable that any misconception should have given rise to controversy in the Press in relation to the Bill, especially when a Bill of parallel structure has been so universally accepted in England. I hope that our Bill and the explanation which I have given will be equally well received by the profession as a whole in Scotland, and by the public.
We are told that we are Anglicising our law, and even Sovietising it, that there is

something dark and sinister in the proposals, that the proposals are being unduly rushed, and that this is another example of the Labour Government's attempt to foist a system of legal aid on the profession with hidden motives underlying it.

Major Lloyd: Hear, hear.

The Lord Advocate: "Hear, hear," says the hon. and gallant Member. I should just like to test that. It is interesting to note that the counterpart measure for England, which is on exactly parallel terms, fitted to the structure of law in England with all the matters available to it that are available to our Bill, with the exception that it is the Lord Chancellor who will make the regulations and not the Secretary of State, was warmly welcomed by all sides of the House yesterday, and in particular by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) and the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). May I quote what the latter in fact said in the course of the Debate? He started off by saying:
I think that the House will agree this Bill has received as cordial a welcome as any legal Bill is likely to receive from a whole body of lawyers.
He goes on later:
It is one of the few Bills introduced by this Government to which I can give almost unqualified support.
Further on he says:
I can say with confidence that had we on this side been the Government since 1945, we would certainly have introduced a Measure of this sort at the earliest opportunity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 1314.]
The complaint is not that the Bill has been hurried too much; it is that it was not introduced earlier. The complaint is not that this Measure is full of dark and sinister designs, but is one which the Conservative Party would have introduced for Scotland had they been in power since 1945. I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to reconcile that with his conscience and, if he has any difficulty, to have a consultation with his hon. and learned Friend—

Major Lloyd: My hon. and learned Friend was speaking about the English Bill. I am referring to the Scottish Bill and representations from people in Scotland, which is a different matter.

The Lord Advocate: I was dealing with the hon. and gallant Gentleman's own views, in so far as he was capable of formulating them at all.

Mr. Gallacher: Why say that the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd) has a conscience?

The Lord Advocate: I ask Members opposite to face this question; Is it likely that a Measure which Sovietised the law would have the approval of the learned Members—and I mean "learned" in the best sense of the word—to whom I have referred? Are we Anglicising the law because we accepted the principles of a wide extension of legal aid and equiparated the financial positions? Some of the critics, friends of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Renfrew, have said that we should have accepted a lower financial maximum, as the English figures were based on English costs. I do not quite understand this argument, but if it is suggested that there should be a lower maximum qualification in Scotland than in England, we on this Front Bench will resist any such proposition. For all the avowed Scottish Nationalism—which is rather synthetic—which has been exhibited in parts by the hon. and gallant Member, I think he might find it difficult to square that with his case when he goes back to Scotland.

Major Lloyd: rose—

The Lord Advocate: I cannot give way.

Major Lloyd: But the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made an accusation against me, and—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. and gallant Member cannot pursue that point as the Lord Advocate has not given way.

The Lord Advocate: The principal feeling seems to be about Clause 11 (1) which empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations
…for giving effect to this part of this Act or for preventing abuses thereof.
What are these powers, and by whom should they be exercised. The framework of the Scheme provides regulations of two kinds—the first to increase the scope of the Bill, which are subject to affirmative Resolution procedure, to

which I am sure there is no objection whatsoever; the second to give administrative effect to the scheme, which are subject to negative Resolution procedure. Following the recommendations of the Cameron Committee the Bill has been framed in general terms to provide elasticity for the scheme, which should be capable of simple and rapid amendment. Changes which will inevitably occur as the administration develops should be laid before Parliament by regulation, to obviate the need to bring forward an amending Bill.
What are the regulations required for? These are the regulations which, it is said, are affecting the whole life and future of the legal profession in Scotland: The regulations which the Secretary of State will be called upon to make under the negative Resolution procedure will be found in Clause 2 (4) and Clause 2 (5), which deal with the question of effecting the appropriate court or tribunal which will determine how much expenses will be paid by the unsuccessful litigant, and the extent to which any such determination is to be final—i.e. if there is to be advantage it may be necessary to have a time limit within which the successful party can come back and say that conditions have altered to such an extent that he is entitled to his full expenses, and not only to part expenses as originally decided.
Clause 3 (4) deals with finance, and various regulations under Clause 4 deal with finance or deductions from gross income in arriving at the net disposable income. Clause 6 provides regulations to deal with reciprocity with England as to legal advice and Subsection (6) of that Clause deals with the scope of legal advice to be administered under the scheme. Clause 10 provides regulations in connection with pension rights of employees under the scheme. These are machinery provisions; they have nothing to do with legal provisions, or legal rights under the scheme. It is expressly provided in Clause 1 (7, a) that:
the fact that the services of counsel or a solicitor are given by way of legal aid shall not affect the relationship between or the rights of counsel, solicitor and client;
That is only modified by the regulations to this extent: that they do not pay them as they did in the past. There is nothing sinister about that. When we examine the nature of the powers said


to be exercised by these regulations the feeling that they are sinister should be dispelled, because an officer of State, responsible to Parliament, is given power to make regulations which are primarily and substantially designed to control the finances of the scheme.
Provision is made to formulate the scheme. As to whether Clauses like Clause 11 (1) require any amendment to make it clear that no sinister powers are being sought by the Secretary of State that can be considered in Committee. Let me say, here and now, that the Bill will not come before the Scottish Grand Committee until February. If the Bill is agreed in principle discussions will take place in Committee. Allegations that it has been hurried show a slight misapprehension—not on the part of Members here—about our Parliamentary procedure.
The Bill was published on 22nd November, and it may be that legal societies and other interested parties in Scotland have not been able properly to to criticise it—though a reading of the Scottish Press would not lead one to that conclusion. The Cameron Report admitted the need for provision to be made by an officer of State, responsible to Parliament. In England the officer of State is the Lord Chancellor, who has both judicial and executive functions. We have no comparable officer of State in Scotland. The Lord President of the Court of Session is a judicial officer, and is not answerable to Parliament. He does not fulfil the conditions, and I am sure that he would not be prepared or wish to accept the responsibility. The Lord Advocate, as the officer of State responsible for criminal prosecutions in Scotland, and who appears in court on behalf of the Crown, is perhaps not the appropriate officer of State, because he may be prosecuting people who are receiving the benefit of legal aid under the scheme he has to regulate, or he may even find himself in the invidious position of arguing about regulations for which he was responsible. That is an almost intolerable position in which to put any Lord Advocate—to instruct him to make regulations and then have him argue with the court as to the meaning of his own regulations.
That leaves us with the Secretary of State, who is the Keeper of the Great

Seal and the person responsible for judicial appointments in Scotland and who is divorced from any intimate association with the courts. Looking at the matter broadly he is obviously the most appropriate person to choose for that job. I can tell the House, as my right hon. Friend will admit, that if there were a question of the rights of the Lord Advocate in this matter vis-à-vis the Secretary of State, I would not yield an inch in asserting the right of the Lord Advocate, but I feel, considering the constitutional position I am in, that the Secretary of State is the appropriate person. He is answerable to this House for the regulations, and those which are subject to negative procedure can always be prayed against and the abuse ventilated on the Floor of the House of Commons. The only alternative is to allow the Lord Chancellor to exercise his constitutional right as Lord High Chancellor of Scotland, but I doubt very much if we would wish to go back to Scotland and justify such a suggestion as that.
There are a number of points on the Bill with which I should like to deal. The hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh asked me on Clause 1 (6) who would be the deciding authority as to whether or not legal aid should be granted. Quite obviously that is a matter for the legal profession and for the various committees set up under the scheme, and quite a number of these points are dealt with in the White Paper which I commend to the attention of hon. and right hon. Members. The next point arose on Clause 2 and was about contributions and expenses. That is rather a Committee point. The explanation involved is rather detailed, but I might say that there is a responsibility beyond a certain point to make contributions and there is a responsibility for the unsuccessful litigant to pay the expenses of the successful litigant. The details are a bit involved for a Second Reading speech, and I trust the hon. and gallant Member will forgive me if I do not go into it in detail now.
The same applies to the question as to what constitutes disposable income. If one looks at the disregards in Clause 4 (c) it will be appreciated that a person with quite a substantial income would net only come within the scheme, but might have to contribute comparatively little towards the cost of his litigation. Under


Clause 5 (1) the panels will be drawn up respectively by the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates, and I trust that it is appreciated that we have set down general principles in the Bill, leaving the actual operation of the scheme which will be drawn up to the Law Society.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Why does not the Bill say so?

The Lord Advocate: The Bill does say so. I am reminded that the hon. Member prefaced his speech by saying he had not had time to read the Bill properly.

Mr. Macpherson: I did not say that.

The Lord Advocate: HANSARD will show tomorrow which of us is correct. Clause 7 (1) says:
Subject to this Part of this Act, it shall be the responsibility of the Law Society to make arrangements, in accordance with a scheme made by them with the approval of the Secretary of State and with the concurrence of the Treasury, for securing that legal aid and legal advice are available as required by this Part of this Act and generally to administer this Part of this Act.
Regarding Clause 5 (2), as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, the bodies responsible for moving solicitors from panels will be the Faculty of Advocates and perhaps a Committee of the Law Society. Since a big proportion of the work of lawyers, using the generic term, will be contained in this scheme in the future, we felt that it would be desirable to give a right of appeal from such a decision to the court, because a disqualification from a panel might virtually mean the end of the livelihood of a person so disqualified. We feel that it is only right that a right of appeal should be inserted at a later stage of the Bill.
The question of the 85 per cent. was raised. So far as I know, that is acceptable to the profession. It was included in the White Paper which was agreed with the representatives of the profession, and I think that at the end of the day the profession will not come off badly by getting a sure 85 per cent. for all the work they do.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) asked for information about the legal advice. It was suggested from the Opposition by the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew that an eminent K.C. had said that it was fantastic. I do not think so. It has

been going on for a long time. We have had experience of it in Edinburgh. Under the scheme as we discussed it at very great length with the profession, it is contemplated that initial advice will be given by the simple expedient of going into the chambers of any lawyer in the scheme and asking him for advice.

Major Lloyd: I never said anything of the kind. Quite inadvertently the Minister has mixed up me with somebody else.

The Lord Advocate: It is difficult to, mix up the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with anybody else, but I accept his explanation.
The next question referred to the-National Assistance Board. As I pointed: out in an intervention to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson), under the sheriff court procedure the investigating officer is the inspector for the poor. It is true that in the Court of Session it is the Committee sitting in probabilis causa which discusses the means. We discussed it at great length and came to the conclusion that it would throw too great a burden on the committees to ask them properly to investigate means under the scheme. One must remember that this is a great extension of the old poor law system and that we are spending a lot of public money on it and there must be some safeguards.
We have come to the conclusion that a statutory declaration is not sufficient, that it is desirable that there should be an inquiry, that it would over-burden the committees to vest them with the responsibilities for the inquiries and that the National Assistance Board officer is the most appropriate person because he has the experience to deal with the various disregards to which reference is made in the Bill. I would again point out to hon. Members that if they refer to the White Paper they will see that that received the approval of the various bodies which were represented at the meeting dealing with that.
I should also like to repeat what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. J. Williams) in regard to the criticism that people should not go to the National Assistance Board to have their affairs investigated. I was going to make the same remark. We


must get a new psychology in regard to the National Assistance Board. We must remove the stigma of the poor law from the minds of our people. We must realise that this is an assistance in cases where normal assistance from other sources is not available. I would repeat his strictures in answering the remark of the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew that his middle-class constituents would not like to go to the National Assistance Board. If that organisation is good enough for the people to go to it for the necessities of life, surely it is good enough for people who have to get financial assistance in connection with their litigation. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh that no longer will the assisted persons be known as poor persons.

Mr. Willis: Before leaving the point of the National Assistance Board, could my right hon. and learned Friend tell us why the recommendations of the Cameron Committee have not been accepted?

The Lord Advocate: That is a Committee point and I should prefer to deal with it in Committee, as with the various points made by the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh, and I hope my right hon. Friend will not regard it as discourteous if I do not go into that question at the present time.
I am convinced that with that explanation the House will be satisfied that this is a Measure which has within its power the ability to give the type of system envisaged on both sides of the House for the benefit of the people. I think that on calm reflection this Bill will receive the acceptance of the main body of the profession and of the public. If it can be perfected, and doubts removed, we shall be pleased to consider any representations inside or outside the profession to accomplish that end. In the meantime let it go forth from this House that the general principles are welcomed and will be operated in a spirit of goodwill by the profession and will be accepted by the public, and that the acceptance of the Bill by the profession, on which its success so largely depends, will be the keynote to its ultimate success. On that note I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I beg to move:
That, notwithstanding anything in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 57 (Standing committees (constitution and powers)) and Standing Order No 59 (Scottish standing committee), the Bill be considered by the Scottish Standing Committee.
The Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Bill which we have just considered is a Bill which in all its essential aspects affects only Scottish interests. It would, therefore, be appropriate that the Bill should be considered by the Scottish Grand Committee. Under the Standing Orders of the House, however, the only Bills which are automatically referred to the Scottish Grand Committee are those which relate exclusively to Scotland and, as hon. Members will have noticed, this Bill provides for legal aid in appeals from the Court of Session which may be taken to the House of Lords, and for the giving of legal advice in certain circumstances to persons who in Scotland require advice on the law of England or Northern Ireland. These matters are essentially parts of the Scottish legal aid system, and I think it will be agreed that, notwithstanding the reference to them, this Bill should be considered by the Scottish Grand Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — LEGAL AID AND SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—(King's Recommendation signified.)

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make legal aid and advice in Scotland more readily available for persons of small or moderate means, and to enable the cost of legal aid or advice for such persons to be defrayed wholly or partly out of moneys provided by Parliament; to establish a Law Society of Scotland; and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise—
A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the net sums required to meet payments out of any fund set up under the Act in connection with the provision of legal aid and legal advice if (subject to any discretion of the Secretary of State to modify


the Act by regulations thereunder to meet special cases)—

(a) legal aid under the Act—

(i) is not made available (except in the preliminary stages in criminal proceedings) for persons whose disposable income as determined under the Act exceeds four hundred and twenty pounds a year; and
(ii) may be refused (except as aforesaid) to a person if he has a disposable capital as so determined of more than five hundred pounds and it appears he can afford to proceed without legal aid; and

(b) a person given legal aid under the Act may be required to contribute to the fund up to a maximum equal to one-half the amount by which his disposable income as so determined exceeds one hundred and fifty-six pounds a year together with the full amount by which his disposable capital as so determined exceeds seventy-five pounds (subject, however, to repayment of any excess of the contribution over the net liability of the fund on his account);

B. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the expenses of the National Assistance Board attributable to any provision of the Act relating to the determination of a person's disposable income or capital or to a person's contribution to any such fund as aforesaid."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

8.44 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This is the second request I have made to the Lord Advocate which I hope he will find it possible to grant, namely, that this Financial Resolution should not be taken tonight. This is the point at which the Lord Advocate pleads guilty. He carried out a, convincing defence of himself on the other points, but on this one he "came clean." This point had not been before the various bodies whom he met. He indicated that it had been mentioned that the Secretary of State for Scotland would come in in some way dealing with finance, but that he was not able to bring these points clearly before the various bodies whom he consulted. This, of course, is one of the main points to which they have taken exception.
Clearly, if we pass the Resolution tonight, the regulations thereafter will have to be made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, the House having so decided. I trust that the Lord Advocate will not desire to take it tonight. It is quite unnecessary to do so. He has already indicated—and for this we are grateful—that the Bill is not to be proceeded with until February. If we pass the Resolution tonight, the societies and the legal fraternity in general will feel

that they have been sidetracked, but if they are to make the representations, which he has promised them, they will be able to have Amendments submitted in Committee. But then, if we do this tonight, they will find they cannot get Amendments on the points to which they attach major importance because these are blocked by the Financial Resolution.
I beg the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider the effect of frustration and disillusionment it will bring about after the, very persuasive speech of the Lord Advocate, indicating not only that he had done his best to have all possible consultation with his legal brethren, but that they would be able to make representations during the further stages of the Bill. If the Resolution goes through tonight they will be able to make no further effective representations on that crucial matter.
It is true that the regulations in many cases deal with comparatively minor machinery matters, but the Lord Advocate himself drew the attention of the House to Clause 6 (6), that:
Provision may be made by regulations for further defining or restricting the questions (whether of Scots or any other law) on which legal advice may be given.
That seems something fairly far-reaching for a non-legal functionary to do. If we write the Resolution into the Bill tonight, we write the Secretary of State into it at the same time. I do not think the Lord Advocate will demur into the argument that the position of the Secretary of State has been one of the main citadels, around which the battle has raged. He indicated that he had convincing reasons for leaving the very strong recommendation of the Cameron Committee. Answering his points in advance, they say:
We recommend that the Lord Advocate should be associated directly with the supervision and administration of the scheme which we propose.
He made out a strong case for ignoring this, but the very strength of that case indicates that it is the sort of thing that may be reasonably considered after time has been allowed to elapse. When he has had opportunity to go over it with his learned brethren, they will be able to advance arguments to him and he will be able to advance arguments to them with much more force than by making cannon shots at them, ricocheting off the red of these benches tonight. Let these


things be discussed directly with the learned gentlemen themselves; let them be discussed in Scotland, and freely, even if at the end of the time the Lord Advocate will say, Sic volo, sic jubeo; Sit pro ratióne voluntas. At any rate, let it wait. Let him go through the motions of consultation now.

The Lord Advocate: indicated dissent.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: There is a certain brusqueness about the Lord Advocate which we did not expect from the most persuasive and, if I may say so, the cooing advance which he made to practically all of us tonight—except my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eastern Renfrew.

The Lord Advocate: I was demurring only to the suggestion that I should go through the motions of negotiations. If I could not go through real negotiations, I should not go through any.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Then we are both at one. Let the right hon. Gentleman go through real negotiations. But if he puts the Resolution into the Bill tonight, he will be able neither to negotiate nor to go through the motions of negotiating. He has promised these gentlemen that he would negotiate and discuss Amendments on the Committee stage of the Bill. We have had a long and, I think, a useful discussion. I suggest that the holding over of the Financial Resolution until the House resumes would not delay our proceedings. It would certainly give considerable substance to the representations which the Lord Advocate and his learned brother the Solicitor-General have made to the House tonight that they are only too anxious to consider suggestions of all kinds which may be brought forward from outside, or inside the House, in order to improve the Measure.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I hope I might be allowed to put a point in reply to the right hon. and gallant Member for Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). I hope he will agree when I have spoken that the Government, in deciding not to postpone this matter, are taking the right line. Some remarks have been made about the scarcity of advocates on the other side of the House. After listening

to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman I feel the legal profession cannot complain that they have not someone who can put their case very clearly here.
I suggest that here in Parliament we are not discussing what the lawyers of the country want, but what Parliament wants, and in this case we are not dealing with the legal profession's administration, but the administration of Parliament. That is the distinction between this part of the Bill that the legal profession are proposing to alter, and the administration of a scheme which they are going to run without any interference from the Secretary of State. I have a great deal of sympathy with workers' control, so long as it is exercised within the limits of the situation. I can understand that the legal profession would like a nice little syndicalist movement, where they would he able to have workers' control independent of Parliament. I think the right hon. and gallant Member suggested that it was a pity they had any interference at all and that this should be decided outside Parliament.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not wish to prolong the discussion and, therefore, I will not tread on the tail of the right hon. Gentleman's coat, but if he will drag it up and down the Floor of the House, I am afraid that someone will tread on it.

Mr. Woodburn: I am glad the right hon. and gallant Gentleman brought that up, because, if he reads HANSARD, he will see that he suggested that the legal profession should have some sort of privilege outside Parliament. Regulations are subordinate to legislation and hon. Members on all sides of the House have been very jealous of the power of making regulations. There have been many arguments in the House as to whether regulations should be made in the quantity they have been made and whether they should not be under the direct control of Parliament at all times, and that many of the regulations should have been embodied in Bills. That is a point of principle and to surrender to any suggestion that Parliament can negotiate with an outside body as to the making of regulations would be a very dangerous precedent, because that is a Parliamentary point, and not a legal point.
The question is, who is to make the regulations? The Cameron Committee


simply suggest that the Lord Advocate should be associated directly with the supervision and administration of the scheme which we propose. That is not ruled out in the Financial Resolution. The Lord Advocate will certainly be associated in some way with the scheme, and if someone has some idea how he should be associated with it, that is perfectly competent within the Financial Resolution. But that is a different thing altogether to an argument as to who is to make the regulations. Further, as the Lord Advocate pointed out, it would be a rather novel procedure if the Minister who made the regulations went into a court to debate whether the regulations meant what he meant them to mean and what they said. It would make the thing farcical.
This matter has not just arisen now. It has arisen on several occasions and I should like to put on record for the House what I gather is the constitutional opinion in regard to it. I have consulted my right hon. and learned Friend and he and I have consulted the constitutional records on the matter, and as near as possible, I would say that these have been the broad principles which have been laid down in the making of regulations. The broad principle is that regulations and rules such as those now under consideration should be made by a member of the Cabinet. They are subordinate legislation which should be regarded as an act of the Executive Government as a whole. In England, the Lord Chancellor makes such regulations and rules, as being equivalent to a Cabinet Minister of Justice.
The person who comes nearest to a Minister of Justice for Scotland is the Secretary of State, and certainly he is clearly the channel through which the authority of the Cabinet is exercised in Scotland. It is, therefore, right that these regulations and rules for Scotland should be made by the Secretary of State. The natural and legal adviser of the Secretary of State is, of course, the Lord Advocate, but for the Lord Advocate to share with the Secretary of State the duty of making such regulations or rules would, I am advised, be wrong in principle. It might lead to difficulties in practice, as the Lord Advocate has said, if the Government were concerned with any point of construction which arose on the regulations and rules in the

Scottish courts, when the Lord Advocate would have to appear on behalf of the Government. The Lord Advocate has pointed out that several other contradictions would arise if he took part in criminal proceedings on behalf of the Government and was actually dealing with a legal suppliant who was being aided from the funds which were administered under his authority.
The control by the House of Commons of finance has always been jealously guarded. Clearly no scheme of this kind could be set free from the control of the House of Commons and the Government in regard to financial matters. This Resolution has been drawn in this rather strict way because we are launching a new scheme. We have not a great deal of knowledge as to how wide and how large it will be. Therefore, we must start within dimensions which we can be sure we can control and finance. It would be very easy to ruin the whole scheme by loosening up these controls so as to make it unworkable. It would become so large as to break the back of the legal profession.
I suggest to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that, on constitutional grounds, he should agree that this Financial Resolution should be approved tonight. If in the course of the Committee stage Amendments are brought forward which seem to bring into the working of this scheme the association which seems to be envisaged by the Lord Advocate, such Amendments can be considered, but from the Parliamentary point of view the making of regulations, the making of subordinate legislation and the control of the purse by the State are quite definitely duties of the administrative head of the State. I am not saying that because I happen to be the Secretary of State. It is an important constitutional point.
I see no purpose in delaying the Financial Resolution. There can be no concession to any outside body in regard to the control of Parliament over regulations and the control of Parliament, through the Cabinet and the Government of the day, in the making of regulations. I suggest that the principles I have laid down should be accepted as applying to the law so far as subordinate legislation in Scotland is concerned, and that the Committee should allow the Financial Resolution to be approved tonight.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. N. Macpherson: There is one alteration which it will not be possible to make on the Committee stage once this Resolution has been approved; that is there can be no alteration in the disposable income limits and the other limits imposed under paragraphs (a) and (b). I fully realise that these limits are in line with the English provisions, but I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what he estimates the cost will be. I know that this is an experimental scheme, but he must have some idea of what the cost of the Scottish Bill will be and what is the comparative figure of the English Bill.

The Lord Advocate: The Financial Memorandum appears in front of the Bill, if the hon. Member will look at it.

Mr. Macpherson: I am asking for the relationship of the cost to that of the English Bill, which is not before me. It is well-known that the costs of litigation in Scotland are much lower than those in England. Would it not be a good plan, in view of this much lower cost, to widen the scope in Scotland so as to remove this limitation? I spoke earlier about the lack of flexibility, and of this line that is drawn. In view of that, would it not be worth while making this experiment in Scotland? It does not cover the whole field of law. There are exceptions laid down in the Schedule to the Bill and there are many other considerations of law that do not enter into this Bill at all. It seems to me that it would be worth while if we could have a comparison, and if the same amount in proportion to England could be spent on this experiment of legal aid in Scotland.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: In the earlier Debate, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) referred to the Law Society as an obvious effort to set up a trade union of solicitors in Scotland. A Law Society is mentioned in the Money Resolution. Are we to understand that moneys voted by Parliament are to be provided and used for the purpose of setting up a trade union of the legal fraternity in Scotland? I consider that they should be made to pay their own way and not depend on Parliament for a subsidy.
Also in the Money Resolution there is a reference to people of "small or moderate means." That will prevent the hon. Member for Ayrshire and myself and others from getting the Amendment we desire to broaden out the scope of this Bill, unless we can be satisfied on what is being argued by the Opposition—that there is nobody left in the country with any wealth. We should have in a Bill of this kind much more scope for discussing Amendments in Committee. I think it would be desirable for the Minister to consider leaving out of the Money Resolution the words "small or moderate means" and also leaving out the reference to a Law Society, so that if a Law Society is set up, it will proceed under its own steam.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I sympathise with the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) but I think that he and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) will manage even without this scheme. I understand that the hon. Member for West Fife gives free legal advice to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire with great success, and I have no doubt that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire will be able to reciprocate. The great thing is for people to give according to their means, and not according to their meanness, which is sometimes done.
In reply to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson), the estimated cost is £252,000 in Scotland, which compares with £2 million in England. At first sight it might appear that there are smaller legal costs in Scotland. That is true, but being a smaller country the administration costs for the country have to be spread over a smaller number of people. Therefore, per person, it may actually work out just a little dearer in Scotland. In any case, so far as Scotland is concerned, we are working on that basis.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Has any calculation been made of what the total cost would be if there were not this income limit of £420?

Mr. Woodburn: No. Clearly that would be incalculable. In fact, it is very difficult to see exactly the actuarial risk the country is taking in going thus far. This is not the last word and things will change. Once the scheme gets working


we shall have facts to go upon. When we see what the facts are, we can consider extending the scheme. Purely from the point of view of national prudence we are introducing it in a way which we think will be controllable. We are not launching into a scheme which might plunge the country into incalculable costs to which we can see no limit. That is the whole reason why certain courts and certain kinds of action have been excluded. We want to keep these things within control. With an entirely new scheme, with no experience to go on, even these figures are necessarily bound to be to some extent speculative. They constitute only a rough guess. We hope we shall be able to keep within the limits. We cannot risk stretching the scheme so far that it would land us in serious financial troubles.
Moreover, the legal profession itself will have to undertake a great new amount of work. If we suddenly flooded the legal profession with the whole population demanding legal assistance, then the profession itself might break down under the strain. For all these reasons, we have to start in an experimental way and see how the scheme works. It is more important that the scheme should be a success, so that we can progress from the present stage to better things, instead of launching out with a scheme which might break down at the very beginning.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — LACE INDUSTRY (LEVY)

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Bottomley (Secretary for Overseas Trade): I beg to move,
That the Draft Lace Industry (Levy) Order, 1948, a copy of which was presented on 8th December, be approved.
The order for which I seek approval tonight is the first of its kind under Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. That Act authorises the Board of Trade and other Departments to make an Order imposing a compulsory levy on an industry where there is no development council. It provides a levy for the purpose of financing scientific research, export promotion or improvement in design, to be undertaken for the benefit of the industry. The purpose of this order is to provide a collection of £10,000 a year from the machine

lace industry to finance a new Lace Research Association. There was a lace working party established and they thought it was inadvisable to establish a development council. The Government and the industry accepted that. The working party recommended, however, a compulsory levy to finance scientific and technical research and it is for that purpose that this Motion is being presented tonight.
The Government, through the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, will make a contribution of about 40 per cent. of the total income. Section 9 of the Act requires that we should consult the trade organisations and the trade unions. In that connection I have to report that the employers' organisation agreed by 97 per cent. that the order was necessary and the Amalgamated Society of Operative Lace Makers and Allied Workers, the Transport and General Workers' Union, and the Scottish Lace and Textile Workers' Union, representing the workers, agreed. In all the circumstances it is, therefore, very much an agreed measure.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It seems to us that this is a reasonable proposal, but there are some hon. Members who wish to make some comment on it. It would be advisable, therefore, that the opportunity should be given to those who desire, to comment on the proposals which the Parliamentary Secretary has laid before the House.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: The lace trade itself is entitled to some credit in this issue, because its regard for research has not been a last-minute idea. In fact, it instituted a research association three years ago and was working some sort of organisation long before the working party itself suggested that it ought to do so. I am glad that the Minister has at last been able to get a proposal which has met with the satisfaction of the whole of the trade, and I hope that this arrangement that has been entered into, may ultimately mean that wider agreements may be reached in the industry.
Many people today are thinking that, because there is a national or trade association, there is no need for individual effort. That is a very dangerous line of thought. What I want to do is to stress the fact that, despite the Lace


Research Association, there is still a very strong demand for individual research, and a very definite need for ingenuity by individual firms. We shall not maintain our trade and we shall not improve out trade merely by relying upon one central research organisation. We shall maintain that trade and improve it by the ingenuity and efforts of individual manufacturers. While we on this side welcome this research association, and are glad that a levy will be instituted so that everybody will pay a proper share, we want to stress the fact that the real success of industry does not come from these collective efforts, valuable as they may be, but springs from the individual efforts of manufacturers.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WAR DAMAGE (LATE CLAIMS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

9.12 p.m.

Mrs. Middleton: There is considerable disquiet among many hon. Members who sit for constituencies in war-damaged areas about the way in which some of the claims for compensation on account of war-damaged properties are being treated by the War Damage Commission when these claims have been received by the Commission outside the permitted time limit for claims as prescribed under the regulations and the provisions of the War Damage Acts. This disquiet to which I refer arises from a variety of factors. Claimants were misled or inaccurately informed concerning the presentation of their claims. There has been one Adjournment Debate already on this major subject. On 11th June my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) raised this question, and there was considerable Debate that day concerning it. I want to say tonight that unless something further is done to deal with the injustices still existing in this regard, more is likely to be heard of this matter in the House than has been heard of it hitherto from my hon. Friends and myself.
Tonight, however, I want to call the attention of the House especially to one

case of very great hardship, in my opinion, where the claim has been disallowed and where the claimant lives within the City of Plymouth. Let me say, first of all, that I sympathise rather deeply with my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in that he has the task, whenever this matter is raised, of replying to the criticisms that are put forward. He has to answer to the House in this matter, but, unfortunately, he has not the power to deal with the matter, because under the War Damage Acts of 1941 and 1943, statutory powers are given to the War Damage Commission to deal with matters such as this, and therefore the Treasury has not in this case the power to intervene. The last word rests with the War Damage Commission. Had the position been otherwise, I am quite confident that, with the Treasury, we should have been able to achieve a satisfactory solution of this matter many months ago.
The problem dates back in a general way to 28th May, 1946. Up to that time, repairs to private property in blitzed areas were mainly done by the local authorities drawing the labour they needed for the purpose from pools of building labour brought into being especially for this work. In May, 1946, the Minister of Health, who was quite rightly anxious that the local authorities should push ahead with their housing problems, sent a circular to the local authorities asking them to relinquish repair work, leaving it to direct negotiation between the claimant, the War Damage Commission and private builders, and to concentrate all their efforts on pushing ahead with their housing programmes. Unfortunately, at that time, the change-over was not sufficiently made known to the people who were most intimately concerned, as subsequent events, I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree, have proved.
The change-over took place on different dates in different localities, and a period of six months or more occurred before, in all the blitzed areas of the country, the work of repair of war-damaged property passed out of the hands of the local authorities into the hands of the claimant, together with the War Damage Commission in negotiation with private builders. It is from that transfer and the inadequate notification of it to those who were most concerned, that difficult cases, such as the one I am


going to present to the House tonight, have arisen. Among many hard cases which I have handled in recent months, that of Mr. Whitby, of Anstis Street, Plymouth, whose case I am presenting tonight, is about the hardest that I have yet dealt with unsuccessfully.
As the Financial Secretary will remember, I had a Question on the Order Paper to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about this case on 20th July last. The Chancellor of the Exchequer answered that he was unable to deal in the House by way of Question and answer with individual cases of war damage claims, but he was referring that case, together with others that were raised in Questions on the Order Paper by other hon. Members on the same day, to the Chairman of the War Damage Commission. Since that day, I have been in negotiation with the Chairman of the War Damage Commission about this case in order to get a satisfactory settlement of it; until, on 18th November last, I received a final letter from Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve turning down the claim. May I say, in parenthesis, that one of the least satisfactory features of this procedure under the War Damage Act has been that Members of Parliament for blitzed areas have literally had to turn themselves into defending counsel in order to try to secure justice for their constituents who have submitted their claims outside the time limit set by the Commission.
When I consider the hours of consultation and inquiry that I have put in with regard to these claims that I myself have handled from within the confines of my own constituency, probing the details of each case which was submitted and going through piles of correspondence in some cases—letters which have passed between the various bodies before the cases came into my hands—and while I have been very glad indeed to give my constituents all the help I could in this regard, I want to say that that was not really the job which I was sent to this House to do. Nor is it the job that my hon. Friends were sent here to do when they were elected. I would also point out that this kind of investigation has not been required in any other type of constituency case that I have handled on behalf of my constituents.
The property in the case I raise tonight was, at the time it was damaged, the

property of Mr. Whitby's mother, and comprised a small shop and a dwelling house. At the time of the damage Mr. Whitby was serving with His Majesty's Forces, and his mother, who was a very elderly lady and in bad health, was struggling along as best she could with all the difficulties of keeping the home and her business going against her son's return to take over from her, and with the added difficulties and dangers which beset every citizen—and especially I would say the shopkeepers—in those towns and cities of our country that the enemy had selected for his attack by aerial bombardment. Despite the fact that when Mr. Whitby was on leave he advised his mother on more than one occasion to get the repairs done with all speed, the poor lady was so overburdened by all the things that she had already to do that she just could not add this additional worry.
So things went on until Mr. Whitby's discharge from the Army in August, 1945, his mother's great illness in the winter of 1945–46, and his mother's eventual death in May, 1946. Then the property passed into the hands of my constituent and he set about getting the repairs done. He did what I suppose most of us would do in those circumstances. He inquired of his neighbours and friends how they had got their repairs done, and was told that they had been done by the local authorities. So he went to the Plymouth Corporation War Damage Department and asked that his premises might be put into a good state of repair. He was there told that they would have to send an inspector to view the premises before they could decide whether the work was of sufficient urgency and the damage sufficiently great for the repairs to be done at that time. They sent the inspector, and as a result of what he found the licence was issued and Mr. Whitby was told to employ his own builder and go ahead to get the repairs done. Unfortunately, this young ex-Service man, who was in the Army all through the war, did not know and was not told that a claim had also to be made to the War Damage Commission, and their inspection carried out and the work approved before the work was commenced.
Having obtained his licence from the local authority, he in all good faith


went ahead; he engaged the builder and the work was commenced. However, owing to the shortage at that time of materials for certain war damage repair work, and in this particular case the shortage of plate glass, the work could not be completed until January of this year. The work was completed on 28th January. On 2nd February he received the bill from the builders who had done the job. On 3rd February he paid the bill out of the gratuity he had received on his discharge from His Majesty's Forces, and on that same day he went to the Plymouth Corporation War Damage Department to present his claim for compensation, only at that point to be told that compensation payments were not made by the Corporation and that he must apply to the War Damage Commission in order to get the compensation. After some inquiry about the procedure he wrote to the Commission on 3rd March this year and again on 17th March, because he had not had his first letter acknowledged, only to get after some days this undated, duplicated, peremptory refusal to admit the claim from the South-Western Regional Office of the War Damage Commission—which letter I hold in my hand and will now pass to the Financial Secretary for his inspection.
No inquiry of the claimant why the claim was received so late was made by the War Damage Commission. No reference was made to the local authority for their information or advice concerning the case, and there was no reference even to the notification to the War Damage Commission itself by the local authority at the time the damage was done that damage had been done to this particular property. May I say here that I believe almost all the trouble about these cases could have been avoided by the War Damage Commission if they had had the good sense, when they received claims which were obscure or doubtful, to consult with the local authorities concerned about them. Certainly, in my own area the local authority could have given, would gladly have given and can still give, much invaluable information to the War Damage Commission in those cases where there is some doubt in the matter.
I believe that this House and my right lion. Friend the Financial Secretary will

be profoundly shocked to hear that citizens who suffered during the war—and, may I emphasise, ex-Service men citizens who were serving with the Army all through the war, as this young man was—can be treated in this way because of errors or omissions arising out of circumstances over which they had no control. In raising this matter on the Adjournment tonight, I should like to say that I have not done so without being quite sure that all the facts I have adduced in support of my constituent were known personally to the Chairman of the War Damage Commission many months ago, except one. I myself only discovered it recently, for it could only be discovered from the building firm concerned. It was about the delay in the building repairs owing to shortages particularly of plate glass in the Plymouth area during that time.
In presenting this case to the House tonight for their most sympathetic consideration, I ask the Financial Secretary, in any statement that he may make, to tell the House that this claim, which has been so badly mishandled, shall be admitted and that the debt to this man shall be recognised. Also I should like my right hon. Friend to assure the House that he and his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take steps to see, even now, that some method is found by the Treasury or the War Damage Commission to prevent such injustices as that with which I have dealt from occurring in the case of any other citizen of this country who had the misfortune to lose his property during the war.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Braddock: The House is deeply indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton) for having raised this question once more. I confirm what she said in her opening remarks, that this House will hear a great deal more about this question unless cases like these are properly met by those in authority. This is a typical case, and it is brought forward as a typical case. Cases like this could be repeated over and over again by every Member who comes from a blitzed area. The important thing is that the Chairman of the War Damage Commission himself admits that the great


majority of cases that are being disallowed are disallowed solely on the ground of late notification. We hear a lot of talk about the difficulties in deciding whether or not damage is due to the results of enemy action, and we hear suggestions that people are trying to swindle the War Damage Commission, but we have it on the authority of the Chairman himself that the chief reason for rejecting the great majority of these claims is because of late notification.
The striking thing is that, in spite of the fact that a case may have been turned down two, three or four times by the central office, the War Damage Commission agree to send round an assessor and give the claimant justice when a Member of Parliament takes up the matter. It is an entirely wrong procedure to put this responsibility on Members of Parliament, and it is a procedure that is dangerous. Of the cases I have drawn to the attention of the War Damage Commission, approximately 25 per cent. have been re-examined and dealt with. The Commission are not consistent, therefore, in their treatment. It will be found, in the great majority of cases, that compensation is due to the claimants if an examination is made by the technical experts of the War Damage Commission, but it has apparently been resolved by the Commission to clamp down on the rights of a section of the population by brute force and by over-riding all the arguments and reasons submitted to them.
I will give one example in the case of my own constituency. I discovered, only quite recently, that the central office have issued a directive to their district offices to the effect that war damage claims should be admitted for examination up to 12 months after the date when the local authority placed its last contract for war damage repairs and where insufficient notification has been given. I have discovered that that directive was issued in my own constituency. I have also discovered that the local authority only notified those claimants who came to their office and asked when their war damage repairs were to be done. On occasions of that sort they issued, solely and only to those people, a leaflet which had been issued to them by the Ministry of Health. It might be said that it was the duty of the local authority to issue

that leaflet broadcast to all potential claimants. My local authority acted with great care in this matter. They got their instructions from the Ministry of Health, and it was the Ministry which had instructed them only to issue those leaflets in cases where application was made. I therefore suggest that so far as the great majority of my constituents who are in this predicament are concerned, insufficient notification was given.
What are the facts taken in relation to the 12 months' grace which the War Damage Commission has instructed its officers to give? I find that in my constituency the last contract was placed on 22nd December, 1947. I therefore suggest that on the War Damage Commission's own showing, all claims put in up to 22nd of this month should be automatically considered. To most hon. Members that would seem obvious and reasonable, yet the War Damage Commission are attempting to reject this situation on the ground that only a few small orders were placed up to 22nd December, 1947. On this showing alone, although it applies only to my constituency, we have another example of inconsistency on the part of the War Damage Commission, and this is an inconsistency which is inflicting great trouble and worry, and possible financial loss, on dozens of people who are not really well off.
This injustice is affecting the small owner-occupier. In most cases of landlord-owned property, the local council have sailed in and repaired the damage. In many cases they have done a great deal more than that. In a great many cases landlords of poor type property have done very well out of the war damage repairs which have been carried out by the local authority. However, when it comes to these individual owner-occupiers, the War Damage Commission is adamant. On the face of it, it seems that the real reason behind this type of action—which is an obvious injustice which we as a House and a people cannot possibly tolerate—is that the War Damage Commission is tired of the job. It wants to get on with other responsibilities which have been entrusted to it. A deputation waited on the chairman of the War Damage Commission and learned from him that if the Government insisted on a revision of the regulations it was making and insisted on


any concession being made to the suffering people, the War Damage Commission itself would resign.

Mr. Berry: Let it.

Mr. Braddock: In those circumstances, its resignation should be accepted. I do not suggest for a moment that the chairman and the War Damage Commission have not done a splendid job of work for the country, but it is obvious that in view of other responsibilities, it is not prepared to carry on with this somewhat difficult work any longer. If that is the case, and if it is the War Damage Commission itself which is threatening or attempting to threaten the Government with its resignation, this is an opportune moment for the Government to make a change and take upon itself the responsibility for the correct treatment of the people.

9.40 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): As my hon. Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton) said, I am entitled to the sympathy of the House. The War Damage Commission is an autonomous body which, under two Acts of Parliament, was given the work of sorting out claims for war damage and making payment therefor. In its wisdom, this House gave the Commission complete authority to decide which claims were valid and which were not, and how much time they should allow claimants for putting in their claims.
The War Damage Commission has for several years now, realised that, as the war receded, it would gradually have to taper off and close down its work. As I think the House knows, it has already paid in claims something well over £700 million and many thousands of claims have been satisfied. Nevertheless, there are cases which from time to time have been brought to this House, either on Adjournment Debates or by way of Question, and on all occasions it has fallen to me, or to my right hon. and learned Friend, to indicate to those raising these cases that we have no jurisdiction whatever in the matter, and that they must go to the War Damage Commission, and that the decision of the Commission would be final.
That is the position, but I should like to say to my hon. Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth and to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) and to hon. Members for other areas who have raised this question that I find no fault with what they have said. They have done their best—and if I may say so, have done effectively—to represent what they consider to be genuine grievances on the part of their constituents, and have been perfectly right in bringing these cases to the notice of the House. Having said that, I have to tell them once more—and to underline it—that I have no jurisdiction whatever to tell the War Damage Commission that they must admit the claim of Mr. Whitby, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Sutton Division has asked.
In reply to the Question which the hon. Member for the Sutton Division put on 20th July, my right hon. and learned Friend told her that it was impossible for those of us at the Treasury who answer for the War Damage Commission in this House to answer questions about individual cases, that he would ask—as in fact he has asked—the War Damage Commission to look into the cases which were brought, Mr. Whitby's amongst them, and would ask the Commission to write direct to the hon. Member concerned. I think my hon. Friend will bear me out when I say that she has had a reply from the Chairman of the War Damage Commission on the case of Mr. Whitby.
That being so, and as I have no jurisdiction in the matter it is quite impossible for me to add to what the Chairman has said, and it is outside my scope to insist that he should admit the claim. Therefore, although I desire in no way to be discourteous to my hon. Friend, there is nothing more I can say in reply to the speeches that have been made tonight.

Mrs. Middleton: Is it not possible for my right hon. Friend at least to make representations to the Chairman of the War Damage Commission regarding this case and express his view, and the views that have been expressed by hon. Members here by their applause, in regard to the claim of Mr. Whitby?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Perhaps, by leave of the House, I may add this, that I took occasion, in view of this Debate and the


knowledge that Mr. Whitby's case would be raised, to discuss it personally with the Chairman of the War Damage Commission. I can assure my hon. Friend that I will call his attention to what has been said tonight and invite him to consider in this light the particular case to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Orders of the Day — RAILWAY PASSENGER SERVICES

9.46 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I wish to deal with another matter which involves grievance on a scale even more considerable than that of war damage claims. I want to raise tonight the issue of railway fares. I believe that almost everybody in this country, except the Minister of Transport and the Parliamentary Secretary, is dissatisfied with the situation. They alone are happy that fares should be at their present level and they alone are trying to convince the majority of people that there has been a rise of only 55 per cent, since 1938. I hope, in the short time available to me, to show what nonsense that is and to try to prise open the iron curtain of Westminister that has descended upon railway activities.
It is, surely, more than remarkable that before we owned the railways ourselves we could ask the Minister why the 2.30 was ten minutes late, but that since this priceless possession has come to us we cannot ask questions of any moment about railways and have no idea of how they are faring. Two things we do know: that the service to the public has not improved and that the bureaucratic methods of the Civil Service are being introduced into the railway system. Already the familiar sight of offices of regional boards appears in our provincial cities. Soon, I suppose, they will be staffed by hordes of officials who were not found necessary in a more enlightened form of administration. The fossilising of the railway system has, at any rate, started, even if it is, as yet, by no means complete.
It is true that railways are not doing quite as well as civil aviation. Last year civil aviation lost about £10 million, whereas the railway companies lost only £4 million. But the railways, of course, seem anxious to catch up with civil aviation, and

we are informed by some authorities that the prospective loss for the operating year 1948 will be very much more substantial—in the neighbourhood of about £20 million. Why is there this serious drop in railway receipts and this apparent large-scale loss? The answer is that there has been a sensational drop in passenger traffic on the railways. This has occurred before. It occurred in the early thirties, but, then the railway companies took reasonable and energetic steps to restore the volume of traffic.
Today, however, those steps are not being taken. The Socialist remedy is being applied. That remedy is to make the consumer pay more. The railway executive, apparently at the instigation of the Minister, is waiting for bus and coach fares to be raised so that the position shall be remedied. No attempt, or very little attempt, is being made, as I think I can show, to attract a return of traffic to the railways. There is just this reliance upon the consumer being punished by higher coach and bus fares so that ultimately he will be driven back to the railways.
What is the position about railway passenger traffic now compared with prewar? In 1947 the traffic was approximately 100 million less than in 1938 and 1938 was not a good year by a long way. But in 1948, if present expectations are fulfilled, the passenger traffic on the railways will be 200 million less than in the poor year of 1938. We see a sensational drop in the amount of passenger traffic on British railways. Those figures do not tell the whole story, because I believe it is still the policy of the railways, in issuing these figures, to calculate a season ticket at the rate of about 600 journeys in a year. With the advent of the five day week, it is more than likely that that calculation is not really effective and they are, in fact, putting down to the season ticket more journeys than are applicable.

Mr. Ellis Smith: To what does the hon. Member attribute it?

Mr. Shepherd: I was going to ask why this drop took place in railway traffic and why the losses are mounting? It is because railway fares are too dear and the people will not pay the excessive prices which the railways now ask. It is true that people may have the money, but, are they going to pay twice as much,


or half as much again, as they have to pay to ride in comfort in motor buses? I think not. This problem arose in the "bad old days" of private enterprise and the "bad old ways" of private enterprise were utilised in order to rectify it. The methods used were very simple and could be used today if the Minister allowed that to be done. The methods used were simply to encourage people by all kind of preferential tickets. We had a whole spate of cheap day tickets, football tickets, hikers' tickets, circular tours, evening tours and all kinds of devices to get the passenger traffic back. I think it true to say that, in the main, the railway companies succeeded in their efforts, but this is not the view taken today by the Railway Executive.

Mr. Collick: Does not the hon. Member appreciate that in those days the railway companies had the rolling stock and the engines to do those things? He must be aware that that is not the position today.

Mr. Shepherd: I hope in a short time to show that it is the position today. At the moment the only policy which apparently animates the Railway Executive, or inspires the Minister, is to hammer the passenger at the ticket office, and I think that quite wrong, although I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary—what is the good of Socialism unless you can put up the cost a bit?
I wish to deal with what I must call the great illusion. The master illusionist, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, made great play on this a short time ago in this House. He told us a wonderful story, which the Parliamentary Secretary has been repeating and which his right hon. Friend has used on many occasions. He told us that we ought to be grateful to the railways, particularly the nationalised railways, because railway fares are only 55 per cent. above 1938 and, say these wizards of statistics, the average level of most commodities is very much greater. This, of course, is quite untrue. It is untrue for two reasons. The ratio of cheap fares to standard fares today is not a quarter what it was. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give the exact ratio because I cannot find it, but it is probably not a quarter of what it was in 1938. There is no basis of comparison

by standard fares against standard fares in 1938. In 1938 a substantial amount of the passenger traffic on the railways was on preferential fares, and it is not true to say that the actual price paid per mile by the passenger today is anything like 55 per cent. above the figure of 1938.
Secondly, an increase of 55 per cent. over 1938 does not represent anything like the increase in cheap fares. I wonder why the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Minister have not troubled to acquaint themselves with the cost of cheap fares now as compared with 1938? Let me quote one or two examples near to my own constituency. Let us take the day excursion from Manchester to Blackpool, which is very popular. In pre-war days it used to cost 5s. 3d.; it now costs 10s. 1d., not a 55 per cent. but a 92 per cent. increase. I take the instance of the day excursion from Manchester to London, which in 1938 used to cost 16s. 3d., and today costs 37s. 6d., a total increase of 130 per cent. Then let me take the shorter journeys, which are very critical so far as the railways are concerned. The pre-war cost from Manchester to Wilmslow was ls. 2d.; today it costs 2s. 5d., which is a 107 per cent. increase. I could go on, quoting hundreds of examples.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): What did the hon. Member say was the Manchester to London fare?

Mr. Shepherd: Pre-war 16s. 3d. and now 37s. 6d. Those are the day excursion rates. As I say, I could quote many examples—but there is not the time nor is there the necessity—to show how the present rates of fares have increased by much more than 55 per cent. I hope that we shall not hear from the Parliamentary Secretary, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or the Minister of Transport any more of this nonsense of a 55 per cent. increase in railway fares over 1938, because obviously it is completely untrue.
I say that the refusal of the Railway Executive properly to institute cheap facilities is ruining their business, and ruining it much more than is apparent on


the surface. The railway companies ought to be doing much more business today than in 1938 because there is an enormous restriction upon petrol. Thousands of people, indeed hundreds of thousands, who would normally travel by road now have to go by train. In the ordinary course of events that should have put up the number of passenger journeys per year by many millions, but it has not done so.
It means, on the other hand, that there are many millions of people more who are not able to use the railways because prices are too high. With holidays with pay, higher wages and full employment it ought to be reasonable to expect that traffic would be heavier than in 1938, but in fact traffic is decreasing. Holiday traffic is going down. I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the House why it is that in 1938 we had 40,000 special excursion trains and in 1948 just 1,000. The summer mileage on the railways, that is, in the months of July, August and September, was five million weekly in 1938. It has gone down in 1948, in the days of holidays with pay and full employment, to three million.
These are really most serious figures. So far as I can see, all that is now being done is to wait pathetically for bus and coach fares to be increased in the hope that passengers will be driven back to the railways. That is no solution, nor is the excuse for it what the hon. Member for West Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) suggested when he interrupted me.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. J. Henderson.]

Mr. Shepherd: I believe the hon. Member for West Birkenhead is associated with a railway town, and I have lived in one for a long time, so I know something about it. There is now no really serious shortage of locomotives. It is true that the railway companies say they are 5,000 carriages short, but that really is an awful lot of nonsense.

Mr. Collick: Would the hon. Gentleman give the authority on which he makes that statement?

Mr. Shepherd: I say it as a matter of fact which the hon. Member can confirm at any depot like Crewe or Swindon. There is now no serious shortage of locomotives, and I say that there is no serious shortage of carriages. If the hon. Gentleman cares to work out the number of passengers carried and the number of journeys made before 1938, and the amount of carriages available for those journeys, he will see for himself that there is no shortage of carriages at the present time.

Mr. Collick: Rubbish.

Mr. Shepherd: This is the kind of story with which, under the protection of a State monopoly, the Minister and the Railway Executive are apparently trying to bamboozle the public. The real fact is that they have locomotives and carriages available if these were properly used, and lack of locomotives and rolling stock is not the real reason for the decline in the number of people travelling. I am going to suggest that the real solution is to get back to the "bad old methods" of private enterprise—

Mr. David Jones: And 40s. a week.

Mr. Shepherd: —and encourage the people to use the railways. The method by which to do this is not to drive them with the big stick of increasing fares on buses and coaches—because it is quite certain the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend are going to do this very shortly, and come to this House and tell us about it. That is not the method by which the traffic ought to be brought back to the railways. It ought to be brought back by reinstituting conditions which existed before the war. I am certain that if the Minister would do that we should get a revival of the use of the railways. But if he continues in this present policy we shall get fewer and fewer people using them.
We on this side of the House, while we do not like a policy of nationalisation and are convinced that it will not succeed in any sphere, are anxious that so important an asset to the nation as the railways shall be preserved. We look with great concern on the deterioration of a business asset which should be of great importance to the country. Therefore, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary


will be able to say that he is awfully sorry for having told the people of this country that railway fares have gone up 55 per cent. when in fact they have not, and that he is prepared to turn over a new leaf and instruct the Railway Executive to institute a policy of preferential tickets, and encourage people to use the rails by the proper and well authenticated methods of private enterprise.

10.4 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: I wish to speak for a few moments as the only Member on this side of the House representing a first-class seaside resort. It is obvious that matters affecting the railway are important to my town. Some of the statements made tonight can be countered from this side of the House. The hon. Member talks about the bad state of the railways and that there has been no improvement since nationalisation, which is patently absurd.

Mr. Shepherd: I really cannot allow that to be said. I did not for one moment say that there had been no improvements since the nationalisation of the railways. In certain respects they have tried continuously to get back to their pre-war position, and even nationalisation has not been able effectively to interfere with that.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: I made a note of what the hon. Gentleman said and it was to the effect that there was no improvement in service. I am a constant passenger on the worst part of the railway, which is that east of the Pennines going to the East Coast and serving the district where I live, and also where I have to work in my constituency. I have mentioned before in this House the dreadful state in which private enterprise left that part of the world.
There has been some improvement; there is no doubt about that. I spend most of the week on trains and I have noticed certain improvements. One can get the best tea on the railway system of this country on the Yarmouth line. I know very few places where they serve a toasted tea cake as well as they do there. I am not saying that that applies to dinners. In a certain part of the railway system, especially on the Pullman

cars, there are some very good meals served and one hears from people constantly travelling on the main lines that the improvement in the catering facilities has been very great indeed, especially since Lord Inman took over. We should know, because we are the experts in this country for testing those facilities.
There has been a great deal of good work. I saw it as an outsider, in places like Doncaster, where tremendous work has been put in on new rolling stock for the railways. There is some very fine rolling stock on the passenger lines at the moment. I saw some, very well upholstered, clean carriages with the mirrors back—I suppose the G.I.'s cannot touch them now because they are so far away. But there are not enough locomotives; anybody who knows about the railways appreciates that. Anybody knows we have not yet reached pre-war standards, not because conditions have changed but because we have not caught up the leeway. We are catching up the leeway, as anyone can see if he talks at Doncaster with the experts. I have one grumble. In our kind of life there is an uncertainty about the time one can arrive in response to a three-line whip in this place, if one is travelling from the North.

Mr. D. Jones: Start early.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: One may not be able to start early. There may be another three-line whip in one's division. I wish there could be more certainty about the time of arrival in the great termini of London. The other day I myself almost failed to arrive in time. I travelled on the Queen of Scots. I just managed to reach here. The engine just reached the platform and then went wrong. I was in the first carriage. What happened to the rest I do not know because I was in a hurry to get here to vote for the Government in order to prolong their life as long as possible.
On certain days of the week it seems to me that during last year a lot of passenger space has been wasted. There are trains running in which we see one person in one compartment where there is room for another five. It is as if the assumption is that the travelling public still existed which we had during the war years and just after the war. There were people like ourselves in the Services, snatching a "crafty 48," as we used to


call it, nipping off to get home early, to spend a couple of nights at home, and then nipping back. We put ourselves, like the odd sardine in a tin, standing all the way. We were prepared to do it and we did it. Thousands of people stationed in this country did it. But obviously that traffic has fallen off to a large extent. Some people in the Forces cannot afford to use their 48-hours leaves to the extent to which they did during the war. They cannot take the 48 hours leave at the rate they have to pay up to, say, Yorkshire. I think something should be done in this connection so that some of these people could have cheap travelling facilities.
There is a train which leaves Norwich on Saturday afternoons. Sometimes I finish early in my constituency, and, if I manage to make it, I come to Liverpool Street by that train, take a taxi to King's Cross and possibly get home that night. I have sometimes noticed that the dining car attendants on that train come along to persuade one to take a meal. They pile the plate up and ask again and again if one has had enough turnips or potatoes, because perhaps there are only two or three people using the dining car that afternoon. It seems to be a slack part of the week on that line, but we use the same space; as far as I know the engine uses the same amount of coal and there is certainly the same amount of rolling stock travelling to Liverpool Street. I have noticed the same sort of thing on certain Sundays, in other parts of the country.
Before the war many of us made very full use of the cheap facilities available on the railways. The railways offered 5s. trips from cities like Leeds, in the centre of England, on which one could go west to Blackpool on one coast, or east to Scarborough on the other coast. Our railway stations were absolutely buzzing with activity on those Sundays. It may be too much to expect that to come back just now, because it may need rolling stock, but my observation, which can be borne out by other hon. Members who travel around on political work at the weekends, is that we have reached the time when we could make more use—not in the way we did before the war—of rolling stock than we are doing. I know something has been done, because I have taken part in Debates in this House to encourage

the use of space which could and should be used. We had one Debate in this House during last year, urging that space should be used that is not being used now.
This matter will interest my constituency very much, more especially after the winter, when we have the warmer weather again. We shall not have petrol in the same quantities as in 1939, and we shall rely on the railways to bring people to Great Yarmouth. Therefore, it will interest and affect Great Yarmouth very much if we can get better facilities and cheaper space than we have yet got on the railways. This interests not only Yarmouth but other towns similarly situated on the coast. It is a vital matter for us, and I hope we shall get some word of cheer from the Parliamentary Secretary.

10.11 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) performed a very valuable service in the very first sentence of his remarks. He brought the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) to his feet to recant one of the wild and more extravagant statements he made.

Mr. W. Shepherd: I did not make that statement.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman has not heard what statement I am about to attribute to him, so he cannot say he did not make it.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Great Yarmouth attributed something to me I did not say.

Mr. Callaghan: I wrote down the hon. Gentleman's words, and HANSARD tomorrow will bear me out. His words were, "Service to the public has not improved." Is that the hon. Gentleman's case or does he wish to withdraw?

Mr. Shepherd: I was speaking then—and surely the Parliamentary Secretary ought to know this—about the facilities for cheap tickets for the public.

Mr. Callaghan: That is, at least, a partial recantation, if not the wholesale recantation I had hoped to hear. The


hon. Gentleman is not claiming that the nationalised service to the public has deteriorated.

Mr. Shepherd: I did not say so.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman did not say so. At least, we can go in that direction part of the way together. I am going to be able to carry the hon. Gentleman with me much further by telling him in terms of punctuality just what percentage of trains arrive on time, from which he can see how, to that extent, the service to the public has improved. It is no good the hon. Gentleman wagging his head at me, because he has got to hear these figures.

Mr. Shepherd: I have not queried them.

Mr. Callaghan: The percentage of express passenger trains arriving on time or up to five minutes late in the four weeks ended the 4th October, 1947, was 52.9 per cent. In the four weeks ending 2nd October, 1948, precisely a year later, the percentage was 65.3. That shows a substantial improvement in service to the public. I should like to quote the figures of other passenger trains. In the corresponding period in 1947—

Mr. Shepherd: I asked about the cheap fares.

Mr. Callaghan: I shall come to cheap fares in due time. The hon. Gentleman has to hear about this improvement first. As for the other passenger trains, arriving on time or up to five minutes late, in the four weeks ended the 4th October, 1947, the percentage was 86.7 per cent. In the four weeks ending 2nd October last, that had risen to 91.6 per cent.
I leave that point because I have many inaccuracies with which to tax the hon. Gentleman, and I shall not have time to deal with them all if I do not at once proceed. The next one was this. He told the House that the loss on the railways last year was only £4,000,000.

Mr. Shepherd: It was an approximate figure.

Mr. Callaghan: An approximate figure. Well, if the hon. Gentleman turns to Cmd. Paper 7399, "Government Control of Railways," he will see there that the actual total loss on the railways last year

—and I say it with regret—including the fixed annual sum payable by the Government to the controlled undertakings—that is rent—was nearly £60 million.

Mr. Shepherd: Does that include London Passenger Transport?

Mr. Callaghan: London does not make a lot of difference to this figure. It does not make much difference between £4 million and £60 million. I am not going to make any accurate forecast of what the financial situation on the railways will be at the end of this year, but I say to the hon. Gentleman he can go back to his constituents and say that the loss will not be anything like as big as it was last year. His third inaccuracy is that he says that we shall come to the House some day and announce an increased schedule of fares. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman followed the operation of the Transport Bill through this House, but if he did, then he is just being misleading or, if on the other hand, it is ignorance on his part, then I am glad to have the opportunity to correct him.

Mr. Shepherd: I said that he would come to this House to indicate an increase in bus and coach fares, not railway fares.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman can read what he said in HANSARD tomorrow. If he desires to correct it in HANSARD he can; I shall not complain. I think it worth while getting on record tonight the actual procedure which the Transport Act lays down. The Minister will not have power under the Transport Act to come to this House and announce an increase in railway fares. There is a fixed procedure under Part V of the Transport Act which will have to be followed out before any upward alteration in fares can be made.
The British Transport Commission is charged under Part V of the Transport Act with the duty of reviewing the fare schedules in the country. Having made their review, they may then go to the Transport Tribunal which, as the House knows, is an independent body set up by statute, taking their proposals to them, and the Transport Tribunal may then hold, and, indeed, will hold, public hearings at which all interests who use the railways will be entitled to make


their observations upon the proposals that the British Transport Commission will make. At that stage, I am quite sure that there will be considerable debate; at any rate, if the situation which arose in 1921 is repeated there will be considerable debate. On the last occasion when the railways went in this way to the Transport Tribunal, the debate lasted for seven years, and all public interests were heard during the course of that time. I have a feeling that they will be able to do it a little more quickly now.
The essential point is that the Minister will not now increase fares. The British Transport Commission has laid upon them the duty of proving their case. If they want to increase fares, and if they feel that it is necessary to increase fares, they have to do it in public before the Tribunal, with all the opposition fully represented, and they have to sustain their case in that way before any increase can be conceded. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not make this point again either in relation—

Mr. Shepherd: I have not made it, so the hon. Gentleman need not worry about my making it again.

Mr. Callaghan: In that case, the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell his constituents what is the right procedure. He says that the Socialist policy is to make the consumer pay more; that our only policy is to hammer the passenger; that the railway companies used to go out for cheap fare tickets and now they do nothing of the sort.
I should like, with the permission of the House, to read some of the fare facilities which have been introduced since 1st January last: cheap day tickets have been considerably extended. Day-outings for parties with a minimum of eight adults have been extended to every day of the week by ordinary, relief or special trains, by prior arrangement; day-outings for juveniles up to 18 years of age with a minimum of eight juveniles extended to every day of the week; guaranteed day excursions with a minimum of 300 adults; advertised day excursions by ordinary, relief or special train at single fare for the double journey; circular tours; half day and evening excursions by ordinary or special trains at less than single fare for the double journey; cheap facilities for sports clubs. On 1st January

next, walking tour tickets will be introduced at single fare for the double journey, so that for example those in this House who like hiking and, I believe, there are a number who do, will be able to go to one station, do their walk across country and come back from another station. Another facility will be introduced for rambling and cycling organisations, who will be able to get touring tickets at one-third less than the point to point single fare cost.
I have hurried over that list of facilities which have been made available during the last 12 months, or are about to be made available; but because I have hurried over it I hope its significance will not be lost sight of. Let me translate it into terms of statistics. By the end of November something like three million passengers had been carried at excursion fares on 7,000—not 1,000 as the hon. Gentleman said, but 7,000—special trains during this year.

Mr. Shepherd: I said several thousand.

Mr. Callaghan: The gross receipts are of the order of £1 million in that particular field.

Mr. Shepherd: I, of course, realise that certain cheap fares have been instituted, but will the hon. Gentleman now tell us the percentage of journeys today at cheap fares, excluding monthly returns, as compared with 1938?

Mr. Callaghan: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I should prefer to make my speech in my own way. I am coming to that point in a moment. If he wants the statistics they are all here, published for everybody to see, in "Transport Statistics" every month. They are available to him. I want to continue for a moment on his point that the railways are not going out after business, because it is such unutterable nonsense. In 1947—and it is here in this publication—up to 3rd October approximately 27 million people travelled by cheap-day tickets. I am not pretending to give the odd hundreds of thousands. Since 1st January, when the railways came under public ownership and control, that figure has increased from 27 million to 59 million this year.

Mr. Shepherd: What about the prewar comparison?

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member may not like these statistics, but there they are for the world to read. All I am saying is: if he contends that the railways are not going out after business, how does he explain the fact that the number of people travelling by excursions and week-end cheap fare facilities under the arrangements I have outlined, has more than doubled since 1st January last when the railways came under public ownership? That, surely, is a fair point to make, and I hope the hon. Gentleman has got it. He is inaccurate in this, as in most other things.
Out of a mass of fares that he might have chosen, he told the House that the Manchester to London excursion fare today is 37s. 3d. Well, by a coincidence that happens to be one of the fares I have got here, and in one of the organs of public opinion I find, quite by coincidence, a number of special excursions from London; there are many fares outlined, and according to this, there was an excursion run last Sunday from Euston to Manchester for 23s. 0d. Well, that is not 37s. 3d.; it is 14s. 3d. less.

Mr. Shepherd: What about day excursions?

Mr. Callaghan: I am quoting an actual day excursion run last Sunday; and I shall give some more.

Mr. Shepherd: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I shall not allow the hon. Gentleman to interrupt any more. He has interrupted several times. I am giving him what is no doubt a series of unpalatable facts. I can quote some more excursions. One could go from London to Birmingham for 15s. return, or next Sunday to Swindon for 10s. return; next Sunday, those who want to go to Rugby can do so for 10s. 3d. return, or to Bournemouth for 12s. return. And if the hon. Gentleman thinks that the railways are not competing with the buses, let me tell him that the return fare to Bournemouth on the buses is not 12s. but 17s. 6d.

Mr. Shepherd: What about 1938?

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman really must not keep up this running commentary. I did not interrupt him in this way and I am now trying to give

him some facts so that he can go back to his constituents and tell them the real truth.
I have brought down with me a number of illustrations of the important main line fares which demonstrate just how the increase of 55 per cent. has been made up—and they are important fares. On the route from London to Edinburgh, Waverley, the monthly return fare in 1939 was 69s. 4d., today it is 107s. 6d.; Glasgow 70s. 4d. in 1939, today 109s.; London to Exeter, 30s. 2d. in 1939, today 46s. 9d. And so I can go all through these fares. Southampton Central, 13s. 11d. in 1939, 21s. 7d. in 1948.
They are all 55 per cent. up, and anyone taking a return journey from London to Edinburgh on a monthly return ticket gets his ticket at 55 per cent. above the pre-war figure. I was very interested when I turned up the fares for 1928. It is really most significant. I certainly had no knowledge about this until I looked up the figures. In point of fact, the fares we are paying in 1948 are only about 10 per cent. above the 1928 level. There was, of course, a substantial drop in the fares between 1928 and 1938 owing to the fierce road competition that went on, but we all know the results of road competition during the 1930's, and it is partially in order to ensure that our national transport system as a whole is not rendered bankrupt now that nationalisation has been introduced. Perhaps the hon. Member thinks it is amusing to have our national transport system bankrupt, but I do not think so, and I am sure the country does not think so.
If his point is that railway fares ought to be decreased, let me say straight away that the Railway Executive share that desire to the full. Their basis of procedure is to reduce fares, if they can be reasonably certain of securing additional revenue from the reduced fares. In other words, their desire is, and this is surely the right approach, to improve facilities; by securing a larger number of passengers they can reduce fares and at the same time offer improved facilities to the public. That is the basis on which they are proceeding. The only limitation at the present time—and if I had the time I would give the statistics—is the shortage of carriages. Anyone who travels in the summer months and goes to the main


London termini, or tries to go to Blackpool, is aware of the very severe limitation on carriages, and that is the time when excursions are mostly run. As and when they can get hold of rolling stock, the Railway Executive will extend these facilities.
I think I have said sufficient tonight to indicate that the railways really have gone out after this business in a big way. I am bound to say that, far from accepting the criticisms of the hon. Member, I congratulate the Railway Executive on what they have managed to do during the last 12 months in the face of very great difficulty. I think that they have been extremely enterprising. The hon. Member talked about the increase in bureaucratic control, but he advances no arguments to support that; he cannot find them. What I have been interested to see has been the way the chief regional officers, who are certainly new creations under the nationalised system, in the provinces and in Scotland have had devolved on them a considerable measure

of responsiblity in the question of cheap fares. A great deal of discretion is left to a chief officer in a region as to the cheap-fare excursions he will run. He does not have to refer back to someone at St. Marylebone Station. If the hon. Member is to claim that a chief regional officer has been suffering from interference, he will not get much support from his Scottish colleagues, who are very glad that Scotland has a chief regional officer, and that he is able to take decisions of that sort and adjust local services to local needs in the way that he has. I have no apology to make on behalf of the Railway Executive tonight. They are going about their job in a businesslike way. They are going after new business, and as for the figures the hon. Member has quoted, I can only say that they are most inaccurate and, where they are not inaccurate, they are misleading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Nine Minutes past Ten o'Clock.